Allowed

Binoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2016Crl.MC/577/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam quashed a proceeding for rash/negligent driving and driving under liquor influence. Courts held that without a breath analyzer or an accident, and with a doctor noting no liquor influence, evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.T.No.1284/2015 before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam based on Final report in Crime No.639/2015 quashed.

Binoj Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | 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 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/20TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 577 of 2016 ()

¶6

IN ST 1284/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDOM CRIME NO. 639/2015 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

BINOJ, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O PARAMESWARAN, KUDILIL HOUSE, GOVENDAPPADY BHAGAM, NADUKANIKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rvs.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 577 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 14.9.2015 ALONG WITH THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND SEIZURE MAHAZER OF THE VEHICLE. ANNEXURE II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 14.9.2015.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

================ Crl.M.C. No. 577 of 2016

¶26

======================= Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.639/2015 of the Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki, which is presently pending as S.T.No.1284/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam, for the offences under Section 279 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1954.

¶29

It is a case, wherein, admittedly breath analyzer was not used. Further, it seems that the Doctor, before whom, the petitioner was produced for examination has reported that the petitioner was not under the influence of liquor. At the same time, strangely enough, the Doctor has noted that there was smell of alcohol and the smell was that of brandy. At any stretch of imagination,

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 577 of 2016

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

it cannot be said that the Doctor could smell and identify the smell as that of brandy. What ever it is, there are no ingredients to invite an offence under Section 185 of the MV Act.

¶33

Regarding the offence under Section 279 IPC, the only allegation is that the Investigating Officer could see that the vehicle was being driven in a zigzag manner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not under the influence of liquor. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor. Even though it is alleged that the crime has been registered on the complaint of a passenger, the so-called passenger has not been made a witness in Annexure-II final report. In order to prove an offence under Section 279 IPC, the evidence should be crystal clear that the person has driven the vehicle through the public road, in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 577 of 2016

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

Here, in this particular case, admittedly, the

¶37

petitioner has not caused any accident. In a case, wherein Section 279 IPC is incorporated along with the offences under Sections 337 or 338 or 304(A) IPC, it can be said that it will be easy to prove the ingredients of Section 279 IPC, when the other offence/offences are proved. Here, in this particular case, when Police personnel were waiting outside, concrete evidence is required in the matter. Any of the passengers are not made witnesses. Matters being so, especially when he was not under the influence of liquor and that he has not caused any accident, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 279 IPC has been committed. Therefore, the entire proceedings in S.T.No.1284/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam, as against the petitioner, based on Annexure-II Final report in Crime No.639/2015 of the Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki, are liable to be quashed.

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 577 of 2016

¶39

-: 4 :-

¶40

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in S.T.No.1284/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam, as against the petitioner, based on Annexure-II Final report in Crime No.639/2015 of the Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶42

stu

Binoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoj 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

Muhammad Shafi Vs Surendran

Ibrahim @ Imbayi Vs Sunil

Sivarajan R. Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs the State of Kerala

K.Arif Vs State of Kerala