Disposed

A.Abdul Kabeer v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016Crl.MC/538/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal misc. petition regarding exemption from personal attendance during trial for accused alleged to have protested illegal quarrying. Court held allegations under specific IPC sections require proof at trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to lower court to consider exemption request sympathetically and not insist on personal presence except on necessary posting dates.

A.Abdul Kabeer Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 538 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC NO. 1490/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOTTARAKKARA TRANSFERRED TO AND RENUMBERED AS CC.NO. 555/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 11, 13 TO 17, 19 AND 20 :

¶8

1. A.ABDUL KABEER

¶9

S/O. O. ABDUL HAMEED RAWTHER, HILAL MANZIL, KARALIKONAM

¶10

ARKKANNUR P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

2. JUNAIDHKHAN,

¶12

S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, PALAVILA HOUSE, ARKKANNUR P.O.

¶13

AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶14

3. HARISS A.,

¶15

S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, SEENA MANZIL

¶16

KARALIKONAM, ARAKKANNUR P.O., AYUR , KOLLAM.

¶17

4. ANWAR ISLAM,

¶18

S/O. NOOHIKANNU RAWTHER, KOCHUPUTHJANKADA VEEDU,

¶19

KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O., AYUR , KOLLAM.

¶20

5. SHEMIR,

¶21

S/O. JAMALUDHEEN, CHARUVILAPUTHANVEEDU, KARALIKONAM

¶22

ARAKKANNUR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶23

6. JAFAR H.,

¶24

S/O. HAMSA RAWTHAR,

¶25

SULAIKHA MANZIL, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O.

¶26

AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶27

7. ANSARI,

¶28

S/O. ABDULRAHMAN RAWTHAR,

¶29

SHIBINA MANZIL, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O.

¶30

AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶31

8. SHAJU S.,

¶32

S/O. SHAIKHMIDAR,

¶33

CHARUVILA PUTHANVEEDU,

¶34

KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O.

¶35

AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶36

...2/-

¶37

Crl.MC.No. 538 of 2015 () -2-

¶38

9. ABDULHAMEED RAWTHER, HILAL MANZIL, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶39

10. IBRAHIMKUTTY,

¶40

S/O. UMERKANNU RAWTHER, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU MANIYANMUKKU, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶41

11. NASIM

¶42

S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, THASNI MANZIL, CHERIYA VELIYANNUR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶43

12. RAMEES RASHEED,

¶44

S/O. MUHAMMED RASHEED, PUNNAMOOTTIL, RAFEEQ MANZIL, KARALIKONAM ARKANNUR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶45

13. MUHAMMED RASHEED, S/O. ISMAYIL KHANI, PUNNAMOOTTIL RAFEEQ MANZIL, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O.,

¶46

AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶47

14. SHAJIMON,

¶48

S/O. MATHUNNI, JOSHUA ESTATE, CHERIYAVELIYANNUR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶49

15. NUJUM,

¶50

S/O. ABDULRAHMAN, MAVILA VEEDU, CHERIYAVELIYANALLUR P.O.,

¶51

KOLLAM.

¶52

16. SHARAF

¶53

S/O. IMAYIL RAWTHER, OOLANCHALIL HOUSE, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶54

17. MUHAMMED

¶55

S/O. BASHEER, ELAVIN MOOTTIL VEED, KARALIKONAM, ARKANNUR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶56

18. C. VENUGOPALAN,

¶57

LEELALAKSHMIVILASAM, CHERIYAVELINALLOOR P.O. KARINGANNOOR VIA., KOLLAM.

¶58

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.S.PRASANTH SRI.SOORAJ T. ELENJICKAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.B.PRASANTH SRI.T.S.SARATH SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR

¶59

...3/-

¶60

Crl.MC.No. 538 of 2015 () -3-

¶61

RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFECTO COMPLAINANT :

¶62

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

¶63

2. CHACKOCHAN, S/O. MATHAI, PUTHUSSERI VEEDU, ELAVUMMOODU, ARKANNUR MURI, ELAMAD VILLAGE ARKANNUR P.O., PIN-691 533, KOLLAM.

¶64

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P. R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶65

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

¶67

...4/-

¶68

Crl.MC.No. 538 of 2015 ()

¶69

APPENDIX

¶70

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶71

ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF FIR AND FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 562/2012 DATED 3.5.2012 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.

¶72

ANNEXURE A2	COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 18.7.2012 IN CRIME
	NO. 562/2012 DATED 3.5.2012 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE
	STATION.

¶73

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF ORDER NO. B2-10419/13 DATED 1.11.2013 OF IG OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM RANGE.

¶74

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF SAID REPORT DATED 22.10.2013 IN THE OFFICE OF THE IG OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM RANGE.

¶75

ANNEXURE A5	COPY OF AFTER REINVESTIGATION CHARGE REPORT
	SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
	PUNALUR IN CRIME NO. 562 OF 2012 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
	MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS II, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶76

ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.4.2012 OF THE SECRETARY, KERALA LAND BOARD.

¶77

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶82

====================

¶83

CRL.M.C. No.538 of 2015

¶84

====================

¶85

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2016

¶86

O R D E R

¶87

Petitioners are A1 to A11, A13 to A17, A19 and A20 in C.C.No.1490 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Kottarakkara, presently pending as C.C.No.555 of 2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Kadakkal, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC read with 149 IPC.

¶88

Initially there were only 13 persons arraigned as accused in the case. There was a hue and cry from the Public and the said 13 accused, that they were unnecessarily arraigned as accused in the case, as they had staged a protest against the illegal quarrying allegedly being conducted by the defacto complainant etc. A reinvestigation was ordered in the matter. After

¶89

CRL.M.C.No.538 of 2015

¶90

-: 2 :-

¶91

re-investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted such a re-investigation, has arraigned 7 more persons as accused in the case and has endorsed the correctness of the earlier investigation.

¶92

On hearing either side, it seems that there are no sufficient allegations to bring out an offence under Section 294(b) IPC in the matter. At the same time, with regard to the other offences, there are allegations to bring out such offences, in case the same are proved. Presently, it is too premature for this Court to say that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The contentions put forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioners are based on evidence in the matter and the same has to come out through the trial.

¶93

With liberty to the petitioners to take up the very same contentions before the court below during trial, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of. As far as practicable, the court below shall sympathetically consider the request for exemption. The

¶94

CRL.M.C.No.538 of 2015

¶95

-: 3 :-

¶96

court below shall not insist the personal presence of the petitioners except on the posting dates on which their presence is required.

¶97

Sd/-

¶98

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶99

DSV/3/2/16

¶100

// True Copy //

¶101

P.A. To Judge

A.Abdul Kabeer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdul Kabeer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.P.Kasim Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Mathai Vs State of Kerala