Dismissed

Ibrahim Shameem v. Abdul Rahiman

Kerala HC25 Mar 2019CRA(V)/5/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismisses a Criminal Revisional Appeal by directing that the appeal against an order of acquittal should have been filed before the Court of Session. The Registry is directed to return the petition for transfer to the appropriate court. No substantive merits are discussed.

What did the court decide?

The Registry is directed to return the appeal to the Sessions Court for presentation.

Ibrahim Shameem Vs Abdul Rahiman — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

CRA(V).No. 5 of 2019

¶6

SC 472/2016 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD

¶7

CP 11/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 78/2015 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, Kasargod

¶8

APPELLANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

IBRAHIM SHAMEEM, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJI, R/AT.SADIK MANZIL, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671123.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶12

1 ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MOIDHEEN KUNHI, R/AT.THAYAL NAIMARAMOOLA, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.671123.

¶13

2 AHMADALI.K.M., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MOIDHEEN KUNHI, R/AT KELANKAYAM HOUSE, THAYAL NAIMARMOOLA, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671123.

¶14

3 MOIDEEN SHEBEEB KM @ SHEBEEB, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, R/AT.SINAN MANZIL, THAYAL NAIMARAMOOLA, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-6711213.

¶15

4 LATHEEF @ ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MOIDHEEN KUNHI, R/AT.THAYAL NAIMARMOOLA, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671123.

¶16

CRA(V).No. 5 of 2019

¶17

¶18

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶19

R5 BY SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRL.A BY DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRA(V).No. 5 of 2019

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.2018 in S.C.No.472 of 2016 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod.

¶25

Against the order of acquittal, the appeal ought to have been preferred before the Court of Session.

¶26

The Registry is directed to return the appeal along with the

¶27

impugned judgment for presentment before the appropriate court.

¶28

The fact that the petitioner was diligently prosecuting this

¶29

matter before this Court shall be taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge while considering his application for condonation of delay, if any.

¶30

The appeal is closed.

¶31

SD/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶33

Dsv/27.3.19

¶34

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

Ibrahim Shameem v. Abdul Rahiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim Shameem v. Abdul Rahiman

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

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Y.M.Bright Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Edward Jacob, Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs State of Kerala