Disposed

Hussain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2015Crl.MC/514/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a challenge to a lower court order permitting a carbon copy of a seizure memozar to be marked in evidence due to the original's unavailability. The bench observed that in Section 27 Evidence Act cases, while the recovery is crucial, a mere copy holds limited value and does not automatically constitute admitted evidence. The criminal miscellaneous petition was closed

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was closed; the petition to set aside the impugned order was implicitly rejected as no substantial ground for interference was found.

Hussain Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/12TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2015 ()

¶6

IN CC 250/2010 of J.M.F.C, KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO. 265/1999 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/CR.PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

HUSSAIN AGED 39 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, KOCHAYYATHU THARAYIL, MEMANA MURI OACHIRA VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031.

¶12

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE. P

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2015 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEUXRE-A1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KAYAMKULAM IN C.C.NO.250/2010 DATED 18.11.2014.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE sab

P.UBAID, J.

Crl. M.C No.514 of 2015

¶23

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2015.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C No.250 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kayamkulam. During trial the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor dealing with the case made an application as C.M.P No.7657 of 2014 for permission to mark the carbon copy of a seizure mahazer. Finding that the original is not available, the learned Magistrate allowed the request by order dated 18.11.2014. The said order is under challenge, and it is sought to be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the impugned order I find that the petitioner has nothing to worry. It is now submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement alleged to have been given by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence act is in fact part of the recovery mahazer, the copy of which is marked by the prosecution. If so, I need not say anything more about the

¶26

Crl. M.C No.514 of 2015 2

¶27

value of the document marked on the side of the prosecution. This is a case involving theft and the prosecution relies on a recovery made at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In such a case the statement given by the accused, and which led to the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, must either form part of the original seizure mahazer, or it must be produced in original separately as extract of the relevant portion of the statement. Here I do not find such a situation. Everybody knows what value a carbon copy of seizure mahazer in such a situation will have. The learned Magistrate before whom trial is going on will consider there legal aspects in taking final decision. Whatever explanation the prosecution may have, a mere copy will not have much value under the law. Just because a document is marked, it cannot be said to be admitted in evidence.

¶28

With these observations, this Crl.M.C is closed.

¶29

P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶30

sab

Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammadali Vs State of Kerala

Shaji @ Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ruksana Vs State of Kerala

Derik D Vs State of Kerala