Dismissed

Kunhichekkan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019Crl.MC/6803/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Kerala disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by sureties challenging the imposition of a penalty and dismissal of their appeal. The Court held the delay condonable due to advanced age and directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against penalty reconsidered by Sessions Court within two months; lower order set aside.

Kunhichekkan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.6803 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 544/2010 of ASST. SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA DATED 08-10-2014

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

1 KUNHICHEKKAN, AGED 85 YEARS, S/O. CHATHU, KADUNGONTEPARAMBATH HOUSE, CHEKKIYAD AMSOM, KURUVANTHERI DESOM.

¶9

2 KANNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. KANARAN, ELIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.D.CHANDRASENAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING :

¶15

Crl.MC.No.6803 of 2014

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners are the sureties in Crime

¶19

No.81/2010 in SC.No.544/2010 of the Assistant Session's Judge, Vadakara. In SC.No.544/2010 altogether four accused and out of that, accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 appeared and faced the trial. As per the judgment dated 08.10.2014, the accused were acquitted by the court below. The case against the sureties was registered as MC.No.16/2013 on the ground that the accused was not produced before the court on 09.11.2011. accordingly the Assistant Session's Judge has imposed penalty of Rs.30,000/against each petitioner. The bond executed by the petitioners was for Rs.30,000/-. The same amount has been imposed as penalty as per Annexure-B

¶20

Crl.MC.No.6803 of 2014

¶21

¶22

order. The petitioners filed appeal before the Sessions court and the Sessions Court without

¶23

condoning the delay dismissed the appeal as per Annexure-C.

¶24

Now the grievances of the petitioners is that the lower court has not condoned the delay and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. CMP.No.331/1986 was not seen to have attached to Annexure A2 judgment. The main grievance is that the amount as fixed in the bail bond was given as a penalty to the petitioners. As per Annexure B, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadakara has passed an order directing the counter petitioners to pay Rs.30,000/- each as penalty.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that as per Annexure A, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were acquitted by the concerned court and

¶26

Crl.MC.No.6803 of 2014

¶27

¶28

case against A3 was split up. It was also pointed out that the judgment was pronounced on 08.10.2014. The commencement of trial was on 04.01.2013. The order in MC was passed on 30.08.2013 and the appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and it was dismissed on 21.12.2013. It indicates that there was a short delay in filing the appeal. Further the petitioner's counsel has pointed out that at the time of filing of the appeal, the surety was aged about 85 years.

¶29

So, considering all these facts, I find it is just and proper to set aside the order of the court below and delay is condoned. Accordingly, the Sessions Court is directed to consider the appeal by considering the age of the surety as well as Annexure A judgment and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a

¶30

Crl.MC.No.6803 of 2014

¶31

¶32

copy of this order.

¶33

In the result, this Crl.M.C.is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

¶35

RKM

¶36

Crl.MC.No.6803 of 2014

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN SC NO.544/2010 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, VADAKARA.

¶40

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE B : COPY OF ORDER DTD.30.8.2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, VADAKARA.

¶41

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE C : PHOTOCOPY COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.21.12.2013 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE.

Kunhichekkan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhichekkan 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

T.P.Siddique Vs T.Devayani

Mohanan, Vs State of Kerala

Dileef B. Vs Dileep Kumar and Another

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

H.Muhammed Khan Vs Athul

Joseph.M. Vs State of Kerala