Allowed

Unnikrishnan Master v. P.S.Sasikumar

Kerala HC6 Oct 2022Crl.MC/1735/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Common Order dismissed four criminal revision petitions challenging orders that framed charges under Sections 420 IPC and 138 NI Act. The Court held that framing charges based on Section 244 evidence is procedural and earlier cognizance is unnecessary. It also ruled the Court had jurisdiction under Section 178 Cr.P.C. to try offences from the same transaction.

What did the court decide?

All criminal revision petitions under Sections 357/401 Cr.P.C. were dismissed, affirming the lower orders.

Unnikrishnan Master Vs P.S.Sasikumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1721 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 IN CRL.RP NO.7/2019 OF III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD AND ORDER DATED
05.01.2019 IN C.M.P.NO.447/2016 IN C.C.NO.25/2015 OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.KUNJU, KAUSTHUBAHM, KATTUKKODE,
VADAKKENCHERY P.O., PALAKKAD-678 683.
BY ADVS.
SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY

¶9

RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT, COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶10

1 P.S.SASIKUMAR, S/O.SIVAN NAIR, PRIYADARSINI ROAD, PALAKKAD-01.

¶11

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

¶12

BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH, SR.PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NOS.814/2021, 817/2021
AND 1735/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶17

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 817 OF 2021

¶19

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 IN CRL.RP NO.35/2019 OF III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD AND CHARGE DATED
17.01.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.25/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT,PALAKKAD

¶20

PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶21

UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER,
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O. KUNJU, KAUSTHUBHAM, KATTUKKODE,
VADAKKENCHERY P.O, PALAKKAD 678 683

¶22

BY ADVS.
SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU M.P
SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY

¶23

RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT,COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶24

1 P.S.SASIKUMAR

¶25

S/O.SIVAN NAIR, PRIYADARSINI ROAD,PALAKKAD-01.

¶26

2 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.

¶27

BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, SR.PP.

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NOS.814/2021,1735/2020
AND 1721/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 1735 OF 2020

¶33

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 IN CRL.RP NO.8/2019 OF III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD AND ORDER DATED 05.01.2019
IN C.M.P.NO.475A/16 IN C.C.NO.58/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

¶34

PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶35

UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O KUNJU, KAUSTHUBHAM, KATTUKKODE,
VADAKKENCHERY P.O.PALAKKAD-678 683.

¶36

BY ADVS.
SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY

¶37

RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT,COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶38

1 P.S.SASIKUMAR AGED 51 YEARS,S/O SIVAN NAIR, PRIYADARSINI ROAD, PALAKKAD-01.

¶39

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,682 031.

¶40

BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH, SR.PP.

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NOS.814/2021,
817/2021 AND 1721/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶43

PRESENT

¶44

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶45

CRL.MC NO. 814 OF 2021

¶46

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 IN CRL.RP NO.36/2019 OF III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD AND CHARGE DATED 17.01.2019
IN C.C.NO.58/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

¶47

PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶48

UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.KUNJU, KAUSTHUBHAM, KATTUKODE,
VADAKKENCHERRY P.O., PALAKKAD-678683.

¶49

BY ADVS.
SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
LIJU. M.P
JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY

¶50

RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT, COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶51

1 P.S.SASIKUMAR, S/O.SIVAN NAIR, AGED 51, PRIYADARSINI ROAD, PALAKKAD-01.

¶52

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

¶53

BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SRI.T.R.RENJITH,SR.PP

¶54

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06.10.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NOS.817/2021, 1721/2020
AND 1735/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶55

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶56

¶57

‘CR’

¶58

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶59

=========================== CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021; CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021 ============================ Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2022

¶60

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶61

These revision petitions have been filed under Sections 357 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for Short “Cr.PC’ hereinafter).

¶62

In Crl.M.C.No.817/2021, the accused in C.C.No.25/2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad seeks the following prayer:

¶63

to set aside/quash Ann-F Order dated 30.11.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.35/2019 on the file of III Addl.Sessions Court, Palakkad and Ann-D charge dated 17.01.2019 framed in C.C.No.25/2015 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.”

¶64

In Crl.M.C.No.1721/2020, the same accused in the above

¶65

case seeks the following prayer:

¶66

to set aside/quash Ann-E Order dated 30.11.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.7/2019 on the file of III Addl.Sessions Court, Palakkad and Ann-C Order dated 05.01.2019 passed in C.M.P.No.447/16 in

¶67

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶68

¶69

C.C.No.25/2015 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.

¶70

In Crl.M.C.No.814/2021, the accused in C.C.No.25/2015

¶71

who is the same accused in CC No.58/2015 on the file Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad seeks the following prayer:

¶72

to set aside/quash Ann-F Order dated 30.11.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.36/2019 on the file of III Addl.Sessions Court, Palakkad and Ann-D charge dated 17.01.2019 framed in C.C.No.58/2015 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.”

¶73

In Crl.M.C.No.1735/2020, the same accused in CC No.58/2015 seeks the following prayer:

¶74

to set aside/quash Ann-E Order dated 30.11.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.8/2019 on the file of III Addl.Sessions Court, Palakkad and Ann-C Order dated 05.01.2019 passed in C.M.P.No.475A/16 in C.C.No.58/2015 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.

¶75

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶76

the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

¶77

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.25/2015, arose out of dishonour of cheque alleged to be issued by the

¶78

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶79

¶80

petitioner for Rs.3,50,000/- to the 1^st respondent; where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I.Act’ hereinafter) and also offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’ hereinafter). Similarly, C.C.No.58/2015 is the outcome of prosecution launched by the same complainant on dishonour of three cheques for Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.8,50,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- alleging commission of the same offences and the petitioner is the accused in the above case.

¶81

The grievance that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court not took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, while taking cognizance alleging commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC where the 1^st respondent/complainant launched prosecution alleging commission of the above offences. It was thereafter, the Court proceeded under Section 244 Cr.PC. After recording evidence under Section 244 of Cr.PC, the trial Court framed charge alleging commission of offences under Section 420 of IPC as well as under Section 138 of the NI Act. According to

¶82

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶83

¶84

the learned counsel for the petitioner, in as much as the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is concerned, the trial Court went wrong in framing charge under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, without taking cognizance at the initial stage. Further, he submitted that the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction in so far as the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act though the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 420 of IPC. It is submitted further that, there are no ingredients in the complaint to attract commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC.. In fact, these contentions were raised before the learned Sessions Judge by filing revision petitions led to the impugned order, and he had addressed these contentions as discussed in para Nos.12 and 13 of the common order under challenge. The same are extracted hereunder:

¶85

“12. In this case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the Magistrate cannot go back to the precognizance stage for taking cognizance of the offence. Both the applications were filed before the learned Magistrate for framing charge under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Magistrate also rightly observed in his order dated 13.02.2017 that framing of charge for an additional offence can be considered only after pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.PC. In the Order dated 05.01.2019 also

¶86

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶87

¶88

the learned Magistrate found that there is no necessity of taking cognizance again for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record found that the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and 138 of the N.I.Act are made out in both the cases. The fact that the court had not taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act will not stand in the way of framing charge for the offences made out after recording the evidence under Section 244 Cr.PC.

¶89

A perusal of the evidence of PW1 and the records shows that there are prima facie materials to make out the offence under Section 420 IPC and 138 of the N.I.Act. When PW1 was examined on 11.12.2018, his evidence was not challenged by cross examining him. So, at the time of framing charge the evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. He has clearly deposed the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC and 138 of N.I.Act. The learned Magistrate after careful examination of the evidence on record has come to the correct conclusion that there are sufficient materials for framing charge for offence under Section 420 IPC and S.138 of N.I.Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned Magistrate ought not have entertained the petition filed by the complainant, that too, after taking cognizance and before recording pre-charge evidence is too technical. Even without a formal petition, if the evidence on record discloses certain offence for which no cognizance was taken, the Magistrate can frame charge under Section 246 Cr.PC. So, I find no much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On going through the entire records and hearing

¶90

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶91

¶92

the counsel for the parties I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the revision petitions are only to be dismissed.”

¶93

determination are:

¶94

(1) Can a Magistrate frame charge for an offence, after recording evidence under Section 244 of Cr.PC, for which no cognizance was taken, initially, in a complaint case (instituted otherwise than in a police report), involving warrant- trial proceedings ?

¶95

(2) Is it permissible for a Court to try an offence committed outside its jurisdiction, while trying an offence which is committed within in its jurisdiction?

¶96

In these matters, it is brought out from the records and as per the order impugned that when prosecution evidence was recorded under Section 244 of the Cr.PC, the trial Court found that evidence of PW1 and the available records would show

¶97

¶98

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶99

prima facie commission of offences under Section 420 of the IPC and under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The said finding is not under challenge. In fact, relying on the evidence adduced under Section 244 of Cr.PC and other materials, the Magistrate framed charge under the above Sections by invoking power under Section 246 Cr.PC, on the finding that the materials available established prima facie that the accused to be tried for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶100

When analysing the contentions raised by the petitoner, it has to be noted that the challenge raised in so far as framing charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, charge was framed based on the evidence adduced by resorting to Section 244 of the Cr.PC. Section 244 of Cr.PC, provides as under:

¶101

244. Evidence for prosecution –

¶102

(1) when, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such

¶103

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶104

¶105

evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

¶106

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

¶107

Section 245 Cr.PC deals with the situation whereby the

¶108

accused shall be discharged. It is provided that:

¶109

(1) If, upon taking all evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.

¶110

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.

¶111

Section 246 of the Cr.PC regulates the procedure where the

¶112

accused is not discharged under Section 245. Section 246 (1)

¶113

& (2) provides as under:

¶114

(1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

¶115

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶116

¶117

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.

¶118

Going by the mandate of Section 246 Cr.PC, if, when evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.

¶119

If so the power of the Magistrate to frame charge against the accused under 246 of the Cr.PC based on the evidence recorded under Section 244 is independent and when the case was instituted otherwise than a police report, (a complaint case) while exercising such power, whether cognizance was taken for the offence at the initial stage is of no significance. Therefore, the Magistrate rightly framed

¶120

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶121

¶122

charge under Section 420 of the IPC and under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by exercising power under Section 246 of the Cr.PC relying on the evidence recorded under Section 244 of the Cr.PC on the finding that the accused cannot be discharged under Section 245 of the Cr.PC. Indisputably, there is no error in the said procedure adopted by the trial Court and confirmed by the revisional court.

¶123

Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, while conceding that the trial Court has jurisdiction to try offence under Section 420 of the IPC. At the same time, no contention raised to the effect that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction. In fact, Section 178 of Cr.PC is the answer to this challenge. S.178 of Cr.PC provides as under:

¶124

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or

¶125

(b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or

¶126

¶127

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,

¶128

it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

¶129

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶130

¶131

Since 178(d) of the Cr.PC provides that when it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. In this matter admittedly the trial Court has jurisdiction to try an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. If so, as mandated by Section 178(d) Cr.PC, the same Court can try offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act arising out the same transaction. Therefore, the orders impugned do not require any interference and, the trial shall go on for the said offences.

¶132

However, it is made clear that the petitioner can put forth his contentions, during trial and to establish his contentions in accordance with law.

¶133

Keeping the said liberty in tact, all petitions are dismissed.

¶134

Sd/-

¶135

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶136

¶137

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶138

¶139

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1721/2020

¶140

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶141

ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC
NO.25/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶142

ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.02.2017
PASSED IN CC NO.25/15 ON THE FILE OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PALAKKAD.

¶143

ANNEXURE CCERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2019 PASSED IN CMP NO.447/2016
IN CC NO.25/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶144

ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO.25/15
ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKAKD.

¶145

ANNEXURE E

¶146

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.11.2019 PASSED IN CRL.RP NO.7/2019
ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.SESSIONS
COURT,PALAKKAD.

¶147

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶148

¶149

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 817/2021

¶150

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶151

ANNEXURE A

¶152

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC
NO.25/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶153

ANNEXURE B

¶154

TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.02.17
PASSED IN CC NO.25/15 ON THE FILE OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PALAKKAD.

¶155

ANNEXURE C

¶156

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2019 PASSED IN C.M.P NO.447/16
IN CC NO. 25/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶157

ANNEXURE D

¶158

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO.
25/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶159

ANNEXURE E

¶160

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28.02.2020 PASSED IN CRL.M.A NO.1/2020
IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1721/2020 ON THE FILE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶161

ANNEXURE F

¶162

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.11.19 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.35/19 ON
THE FILE OF III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,
PALAKKAD.

¶163

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶164

¶165

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1735/2020

¶166

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶167

ANNEXURE A

¶168

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO
58/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGIASTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

¶169

ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.2.2017
PASSED IN CC NO.58/15 ON THE FILE OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PALAKKAD

¶170

ANNEXURE CCERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
5.1.19 PASSED IN CMP NO 475A/16 IN CC
NO.58/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

¶171

ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO.
58/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

¶172

ANNEXURE E

¶173

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.11.2019 PASSED IN CRL RP NO. 8/19
ON THE FILE OF III ADDL SESSION COURT,
PALAKKAD

¶174

CRL.MC.Nos.1721/2020 & 817/2021 CRL.MC.Nos.1735/2020 & 814/2021

¶175

¶176

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 814/2021

¶177

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶178

ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC
NO.58/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶179

ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/02/2017
PASSED IN CC NO.58/15 ON THE FILE OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05/01/2019 PASSED IN CMP NO.475A/16 IN
CC NO.58/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶180

ANNEXURE DCERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC
NO.58/15 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶181

ANNEXURE ETRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28/02/2020 PASSED IN CRL. MA NO.1/2020
IN CRL. MC NO.1735/2020 ON THE FILE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶182

ANNEXURE FCERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30/11/19 PASSED IN CRL. RP NO.36/19 ON
THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT, PALAKKAD.

Unnikrishnan Master v. P.S.Sasikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan Master v. P.S.Sasikumar

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

N. U. Valsalan Vs Saju. P.O

K Priyanand Vs State of Kerala

K Priyanand Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Master Vs P.S.Sasikumar

Unnikrishnan Master, Vs P.S. Sasikumar

Unnikrishnan Master Vs P.S.Sasikumar