Partly allowed

Jayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1650/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act due to lack of biometric testing as per precedent, while permitting continuation of charges under Section 279 of the Penal Code.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution case regarding the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands quashed. The prosecution regarding the offence under Section 279 of the Penal Code continues.

Jayan Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2022 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1650 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.897/2021 of Chengannur Police Station pending as C.C No.203/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chengannur

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JAYAN, AGED 36 YEARS SON OF VIJAYAN, AMBADIYIL HOUSE, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, KARAKKADMURI, KARAKKAD (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689504 BY ADV CIBI THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ANJALI, AGED 27 YEARS WIFE OF ANILKUMAR, U.K.BHAVAN, VENMANIMURI P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689509

¶11

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SREEJA.V- SR.PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC 1650/2022

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

-----------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1650 of 2022

¶19

------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2022

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.897/2021 of Chengannur Police Station for offences alleged under Section 279 of the Penal Code and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Pursuant to the final report, the case is now pending as C.C No.203/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chengannur.

¶22

The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case is preferred seeking to quash the final report produced at Annexure-I and all further proceedings therefrom, on the premise that the petitioner was neither subjected to breath analyser test or any other blood test, wherefore, the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act will not lie. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in Sagimon @

¶23

¶24

Crl.MC 1650/2022

¶25

Prakash v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KHC 586] and Shibu v. State of Kerala [2006 KHC 1678] .

¶26

Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja V., learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Learned Senior Public Prosecutor has no case that the petitioner was subjected to a breath analyser test, or for that matter, any other test, including a laboratory test. This Court takes note that the offence is committed on 31.12.2021, after amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019 (Act 32 of 19) came into effect. However, inasmuch as the petitioner was not subjected to any other test, including a laboratory test, the amendment will not come to the rescue of the prosecution. The legal position in this regard is settled by virtue of the judgments above referred and relied upon by the petitioner. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor confirmed that no appeal has been carried by the State from the judgment afore referred.

¶28

Crl.MC 1650/2022

¶29

¶30

In the circumstances, this Court finds that the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be maintained against the petitioner. In the result, the prosecution case against the petitioner, insofar as it pertains to the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act will stand quashed.

¶31

However, the petitioner is also charged for the offence under Section 279 of the Penal Code, in respect of which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has an option to plead guilty to the same. This court need only observe that the prosecution against the petitioner insofar as it pertains to the offence under Section 279 of the Penal Code will continue.

¶32

The Criminal M.C is thus allowed in part as indicated above.

¶33

Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

Crl.MC 1650/2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1650/2022

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶39

Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 897/2021 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION IS PRODUCED HEREIN AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE I.

Jayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayan 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

Valsalakumari Vs Rajan Mathew

Digi, W/O.Late Emmanuel @ Sunny Vs Jyothi T.K., S/O.Kripalani

Raveendran Pillai Vs Vasudevan

Jyothis Vs Somasekharan Pillai

Jyothis. S Vs Somasekharan Pillai

Augustine Thomas Vs P Balasundaram