Petitioner challenged the maintainability of prosecution alleging multiple charges in the same crime were split between courts and that he is now sole accused in some charges. Court held splitting trials of the same crime is unsustainable.
Dismissal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.C. No. 5208 of 2016).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 5208 of 2016 ()
CC.10/2009 AND 11/2009 IN VIGILANCE POLICE STATION. CRIME NO.11/1996 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL COURT (VIGILANCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER:
V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VASU, KARMALA BHAVAN, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Crl.MC.No. 5208 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------ANNEXURE A1 : THE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO 11/1996 DATED 9-8-1996. ANNEXURE A2 : THE COPY OF THE C CHARGE DATED 31-3-2009 ON VIGILANCE CRIME NO 11/1996 (C.C 10/09) ANNEXURE A3 : THE COPY OF THE D-CHARGE DATED 31-3-2009 ON VIGILANCE CRIME NO 11/96(CC 11/09). RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 5208 of 2016
............................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2016
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
charge' are taken cognizance of by the court below and the
CRL.M.C.No. 5208 of 2016
-: 2 :-
case is numbered as C.C.No.10/09. Similarly, the offences involved in the final report as 'D charge' are taken cognizance of by the court below and the case is numbered as C.C.No.11/09. In C.C.No.10/09 the petitioner is the 2nd accused and in C.C.No.11/09 the petitioner is the sole accused. Annexure A2 is in respect of C.C.No.10/09.
who is the first accused in C.C.No.10/09 is no more. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is presently the sole accused in C.C.No.10/09 and he is the sole accused in C.C.No.11/09, and therefore, charges against him before the Special Court are not maintainable. It is also contended that the prosecution of the petitioner before the court below is not legally sustainable.
CRL.M.C.No. 5208 of 2016
-: 3 :-
When those cases, which have arisen from the very same crime, have to be tried before the Special Court, the petitioner cannot contend that the above mentioned two cases namely C.C.No.10/09 and C.C.No.11/09 in which he is presently the sole accused, which have also arisen from the very same crime, should be tried before some other court. These cases also should be tried along with the other two cases namely C.C.No.23/08 and C.C.No.9/2009 before the court below. The arguments resorted to by the petitioner herein are not legally sustainable. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/-
// true copy //
P.S. to Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a private contractor, while remaining the sole accused in certain charges arising from the same crime, can argue against the cognizance of other related cases pending before the same special c
V.GOPALAKRISHNAN
STATE OF KERALA
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
