Allowed

Jijo Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2019Crl.MC/31/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed proceedings under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The quashing is based on the Supreme Court decision in Mohanlal's case due to the investigating officer also being the detecting officer.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery are quashed.

Jijo Antony Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 31 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 251/2016 of JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JIJO ANTONY AGED 37 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUNAGAMVELI, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.

¶12

MR.ALEX M THOMBRA-SR PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 31 of 2019 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.251 of

¶18

2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class

¶19

Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. He is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 27 of the Arms

¶20

Act. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohanlal

¶21

vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2018 4 KHC 387).

¶22

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

¶23

The Mohanlal's case the Supreme Court held that the detecting officer and the investigating officer is the same, the prosecution is vitiated. In this case, the same officer detected the offence and

¶24

investigated the case. It is hit by Mohanlal's case.

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 31 of 2019 3

¶26

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The

¶27

proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery are quashed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶30

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 31 of 2019 4

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

ANNEXURE-A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶36

// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE

Jijo Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijo Antony 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Devarajan Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh M.S. Vs State of Kerala

P.Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Reghunathan Vs State of Kerala

Benny Joy Vs State of Kerala