Allowed

Muhammedali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2020Crl.MC/3246/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a misc. case set aside a conviction where the accused pleaded guilty without legal representation. The court quashed an order made by the magistrate who failed to comply with Section 281 Cr.P.C. by recording the accused's examination properly.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was allowed. The impugned judgment based on guilty plea was set aside. The Magistrate was directed to issue notice to the accused and proceed in accordance with law.

Muhammedali Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3246 OF 2020(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1488/2017 DATED 20-10-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,MALAPPURAM

¶7

CRIME NO.313/2017 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUHAMMEDALI AGED 30 YEARS S/O. KUNHALANKUTTY, KUNNARTHODI (H), MUSLIYARTHODI (H), NEDIYIRUPPU, MALAPPURAM

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.313/2017 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No.3246 OF 2020(E) 2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

A crime registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 279, 338 IPC, 146 r/w Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶18

Final report was submitted on 19.10.2017. It is

¶19

alleged that without serving any summons to the accused/petitioner, he was brought before the

¶20

Magistrate on the next day 20.10.2017 and caused to plead guilty without affording an opportunity to avail assistance from a legal practitioner, presumably on the reason that the injured in the motor vehicle accident is a police constable. The Judicial First Class Magistrate thereon obtained the signature of the accused on the examination alleged

¶21

to have been done under Section 281 Cr.P.C.

¶22

(Annexure VII). Scant respect shown to the proceedings is well evident from the fact that the Judicial First Class Magistrate had recorded

¶23

Crl.MC.No.3246 OF 2020(E) 3

¶24

something like that of “µ”, “à”, “ 2” as that of

¶25

the answers given by the accused to question Nos. 1 to 3 respectively, in compliance of requirement under Section 281 Cr.P.C.. Wherever the accused is examined by a Metropolitan Magistrate, the Magistrate shall make a memorandum of the substance

¶26

of the examination of the accused in the language of the Court and such memorandum shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record. The said mandate of Section 281 Cr.P.C. was not complied with by the Magistrate, but instead he had put some marks as if the same would constitute the gist of the answer given by the accused. It will not convey

¶27

any meaning and is not even capable of identification of what actually written. The

¶28

indignity to the system is writ large on its face and is well evident on a mere perusal and it cannot

¶29

be permitted even for a moment especially when it was done by a presiding officer of a court with full intent and knowledge. It is not an act of ignorance of the requirement of the provisions, but a willful disregard to the system and the proceedings, which

¶30

Crl.MC.No.3246 OF 2020(E) 4

¶31

would prima facie satisfy the reason for initiating contempt against the officer.

¶32

Crl.M.C. is allowed. The judgment rendered based on the pleading of guilty without the compliance of Section 281 Cr.P.C. and without affording an opportunity to avail legal assistance

¶33

hence set aside. There will be a direction to the Magistrate to take up the file and issue notice to the accused and proceed with in accordance with law.

¶34

Registry shall call for a report from the concerned Magistrate who had recorded the examination of accused under Section 281 Cr.P.C.

¶35

(Annexure VII), by forwarding a copy of Annexure VII.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.3246 OF 2020(E) 5

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.313/2017 OF KONDOTTY P.S.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE-II A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.313/2017 OF KONDOTTY P.S., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE-III THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.1488/2017 DATED 20.10.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT AS CMP NO.588/2019 DATED 16.02.2019 ANNEXURE-V A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE DATED 04.01.2018 ANNEXURE-VI A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MALAPPURAM IN CMP NO.588/2019 ANNEXURE-VII A TRUE COPY OF THE PLEA RECORDED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE DATED 20.10.2017 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

Muhammedali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammedali 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

A.L. Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

A.L.Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

R.Vijayakumar Kammath Vs State of Kerala

V.Ramakrishnan Vs Balakrishnan

Ashuthosh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh C.C Vs State of Kerala