Disposed

Gopalakrishnan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2019Crl.MC/4598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition to quash criminal proceedings by directing the trial magistrate to reopen a pending discharge application and decide it on merits within two months after the chemical analysis report arrived.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of by directing the learned magistrate to reopen and dispose of the discharge application (C.M.P.3909/2018) on merits within two months.

Gopalakrishnan, 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 A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4598 OF 2019(D)

¶6

CC 462/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, RAMANKARI

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶8

GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.RAJAPPAN, SURYA SADANAM, KUNUMKARI MURI, KUNNAMKARI P.O., VELIYANADU VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 595.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SMT.S.SIBHA SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SALIH KUM.PARVATHY VIJAYAN SMT.K.L ANGEL MARY SMT.ROSLINDA JACKSON

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA - 689 595.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. C.N .PRABHAKARAN. SR PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.4598/19

ORDER

Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.462/2018 on the file of the court of the judicial magistrate-I, first class, Ramankari. The petitioner allegedly committed offences punishable under Secs 56 and 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The relief he seeks is to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.462/2018.

¶21

Heard Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned senior public prosecutor.

¶22

It is said that the allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is that sugar was mixed with toddy for sale to the customers in a toddy shop. The petitioner contends that mixing sugar with toddy does not attract any of the provisions for which a case has been registered against him. The learned public prosecutor submits that the case diary suggests commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. I am not inclined to go into the

¶23

Crl.M.C.4598/19

¶24

¶25

merits and demerits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. I said so for reasons stated in the next paragraph.

¶26

The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.4249/2018 before this court for the very same relief on the very same ground. This court disposed of the said case granting liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court. This court directed the learned magistrate to take a decision on the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The learned magistrate was directed to take a decision within two months from the date of filing of the application for discharge. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the learned magistrate for discharge. The said application was numbered C.M.P.3909/2018. When the said application was considered, the chemical analysis report did not reach the court of the magistrate. Therefore the learned magistrate closed the said application holding that no further proceedings shall be there until the chemical examination report was received.

¶27

Crl.M.C.4598/19

¶28

¶29

It was directed to issue a reminder to the chemical examiner's laboratory for the report. It was also said that once the report was received, the question of discharge would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed. On a query made to the learned magistrate through the registry over telephone, it was informed that the chemical analysis report was received on 8.4.2019. In the circumstance, the Crl.M.C can be disposed of directing the magistrate to consider the application filed by the petitioner for discharge.

¶30

The Crl.M.C stands disposed of as under : The learned magistrate is directed to re-open C.M.P.3909/2018 and to dispose it of on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/10.10.

Crl.M.C.4598/19

APPENDIX

ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CR 386/2017 OF KUTTANADU RANGE KUTTANADU CIRCLE.

¶39

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC.NO.4249/2019 DATED 3/09/2018. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE PETITION FILED BY REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED DATED 12/09/2018.

¶40

ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.3909/18 IN CC NO.462/18 DATED 8/12/2016. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 27/03/2019.

Gopalakrishnan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishnan, 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

Sunil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Shahina K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sarala Vs State of Kerala

Rameesa Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Sabu @ George Paul Vs State of Kerala

Jaison.v.George, Vs the State of Kerala