Disposed

Jayalal M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2018Crl.MC/384/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court rejected the petitioners' application to quash criminal proceedings in the Sessions Court. The bench held that arguments regarding the sufficiency of prosecution materials to attract Section 135 of the Electricity Act are to be raised before the trial court for framing of charges, not in this criminal misc. petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioners to plead for discharge in the trial court if so advised.

Jayalal M. Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 384 of 2018

¶6

SC. NO.117/2016 of PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. CRIME NO. 706/2014 OF ARTHUNGAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

1 JAYALAL M., S/O. MANILAL, KARICKALCHIRA HOUSE, THANNERMUKKAM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688 527.

¶9

2 RAJAN, AGED 76, S/O. KUMARAN, PALAPADA HOUSE, STATUE, SREENARAYANAPURAM, PANAGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARTHUNGAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 587.

¶14

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, ARTHUNGAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 587.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RENJITH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs. 15/03/2018.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 384 of 2018 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASAR PREPARED BY THE INSPECTION TEAM ON 15/11/2014. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. DB-16/APTS INSM/AE-AKL DATED 16-12-2014. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.706/2014 ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE CONGIZANCE OF WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL COURT AS S.C. 117/2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.

¶23

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

rs. 15/03/2018.

¶25

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.384 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2018

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are the accused in S.C No.117 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Court (Special Court for offence under Electricity Act), Alappuzha. They are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 135 (1)(A) Electricity Act. They pray that the proceedings may be quashed since the facts of the case do not constitute any office.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

It is not disputed that the facts stated in the final report do not attract Section 135 (1)(A) Electricity Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the facts attract Section 135 (1)(a) and (e) Electricity Act and quoting a wrong Section in the final report is not a ground to quash the final report. There is no dispute with regard to it. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the materials relied on by the prosecution do not disclose commission of the offence under Section 135(1)(a) or (e) of the Electricity act. This is a fact to be argued when the trial court takes up the case for framing charge. It is only proper that the petitioner is directed to plead for discharge in the trial court.

¶32

In the result, this Crl.M.C is disposed of directing the petitioners to plead for discharge in the trial court if they are so advised.

¶33

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶34

cms

¶35

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Jayalal M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalal M. 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

Muhammed Farooque Vs State of Kerala

Thahina Vs State of Kerala

Smaran Britto Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Haseena Vs State of Kerala

Adhil Vs State of Kerala