Allowed

P.K.Reghunathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2019Crl.MC/54/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellany challenge against a Sessions Court order permitting an Annexure C application for summoning witnesses to produce documents. Finding that the lower court acted on a mistaken impression regarding fingerprint evidence, the Supreme Court directed the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter and peruse the case diary.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Sessions Judge directed to reconsider Annexure C application and peruse case diary within two weeks.

P.K.Reghunathan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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. 54 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST SC 995/2013 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

P.K.REGHUNATHAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, 13/466-A, AMBADI HOUSE,MADAKKALCHAL DESOM, PAVANGAD,KOZHIKODE-673002, (FROM PUNNKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,ERIYAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.MANJU E.R. SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 54 of 2019 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.995 of

¶17

2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda. At the fag end of the trial the learned Special Public Prosecutor filed Annexure C application to receive additional witness list and issue summons to the witness to produce document and give evidence in the case. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has allowed it. This is

¶18

challenged.

¶19

Heard the learned senior counsel

¶20

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶21

The Petitioner is charged with having

¶22

committed the offence of murder. The scene of

¶23

occurrence is a room in a hotel. The

¶24

prosecution alleges that certain finger prints were found available in the room and they were photographed. The tester inspector found that

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 54 of 2019 3

¶26

they were not fit for comparison. According to

¶27

the prosecution the tester inspector reported this matter to the investigating officer. These reports were not produced before the court below. Since the prosecution did not propose to rely on it to prove its case. To meet the contention that the prosecution suppressed the material facts the prosecutor filed Annexure C application.

¶28

It is seen from Annexure B1 and B2 that some

¶29

finger prints were obtained from the scene of occurrence. But in the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge was under the impression

¶30

that they were taken from the weapon. So it is

¶31

on the basis of this mistaken impression the

¶32

impugned order was passed. Admittedly, the document which is sought to be produced is not available in the case diary (this document is mentioned as report of even No. dated 19/10/2012 in Annexure B2). Having regard to these facts

¶33

it is only proper that the learned Sessions Judge is directed to re-consider the matter. He

¶34

Crl.MC.No. 54 of 2019 4

¶35

may peruse the case diary to satisfy himself

¶36

that there is no foul play. The learned Public

¶37

Prosecutor submits that the trial court may be

¶38

directed to peruse the files of tester

¶39

inspector. This court need issue such direction. But if the Special Public Prosecutor files an application for that purpose the learned Sessions Judge may consider it and pass

¶40

appropriate orders on it. What is essential is the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶41

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate orders on Annexure C application within two weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, whichever is earlier. He may also take notice

¶42

of the observations made above in this order.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

MC/16.01.19

Crl.MC.No. 54 of 2019 5

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE A	THE TRUE 05.11.2018 TO THE PET	COPY OF THE PETITION OF THE SPL.P.P FUR ITIONER.	DATED NISHED
ANNEXURE B	THE TRUE DOCUMDENTS	COPY OF THE LI DATED 5.11.2018.	ST OF
NNEXURE B1	THE TRUE 5.9.2012.	COPY OF THE LETTER	DATED
ANNEXURE B2	TRUE COPY 2.5.2013.	OF THE LETTER	DATED
ANNEXURE C	THE TRUE 5.11.2018	COPY OF THE PETITION	DATED
ANNEXURE C1	THE TRUE DATED 5.11	COPY OF THE WITNESS .2018.	LIST
ANNEXURE D	THE TRUE OF 2018 DA	COPY OF THE CRL.M.P. TED 14.11.2018.	NO.177
ANNEXURE E	THE TRUE 2018 DATED	COPY OF CRL.M.P.NO.1 14.11.2018.	78 OF
ANNEXURE E1	THE TRUE LIST CRL.M.P.NO	COPY OF THE ADDL.W FILED ALONG .178/2018 DATED 14.11.	ITNESS WITH 2018.
ANNEXURE F	THE TRUE 23.11.2018	COPY OF THE COUNTER .	DATED
ANNEXURE G	THE CERTI ORDER IN	FIED COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.161/2018,1	COMMON 62/18,
	177/18,178 15-12-2018	/18 IN S.C.NO.995/13 .	DATED

¶51

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

NIL

¶53

¶54

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

P.K.Reghunathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Reghunathan 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

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

Jijo Antony Vs State of Kerala

P.Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Benny Joy Vs State of Kerala