Dismissed

Salim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2016CRL.A/1253/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the appellant's challenge to proceedings initiated under Section 446 CrPC for his failure to appear. The Court held that without surrendering before the Sessions Judge, the appellant could not contend that such proceedings were bad in law and dismissed the appeal, directing him to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to surrender before Sessions Judge to participate in proceedings; appeal dismissed.

Salim Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1253 of 2016 (A)

¶6

APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER 1/ACCUSED:

¶7

SALIM S/O.JAMALUDHIN, AGED 48 YEARS, PUTHENPURA VADAKKETHIL, MUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0712-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶14

¶15

Crl.A. No. 1253 of 2016

¶16

- - - - Dated 7^th December, 2016

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

1.The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.565 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur. In the aforesaid case he faces allegation of having committed offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act' for short).

¶20

2.It is submitted that on the failure of the appellant to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated. The sureties filed Crl.A.No.469 of 2016 and it is submitted that the same is pending.

¶21

3.According to the learned counsel, the failure of the petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge for trial was not wilfull.

¶22

4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶23

Crl.A. No.1253 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

5.It is evident from the submissions advanced that the appellant has not so far surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge. Without having surrendered, the appellant cannot contend that the proceedings initiated by the learned Sessions Judge is bad in law.

¶26

6.I find no reason to consider the prayer in this appeal. The appellant shall surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and shall participate in the proceedings. This order shall not stand in the way of the appellant in preferring any appeal challeging the proceedings, if any, initiated under Section 446 of the Code, pursuant to his surrender. This petition is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶28

kp/-7.12.16

¶29

True copy

¶30

P.A. To Judge.

Salim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim 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

V Sunilkumar Vs Mara Pandiyan I a S

Abdul Basith Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Stella Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Salman Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Arshad Vs State of Kerala