Remanded

Renjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that proceedings under Section 240 Cr.P.C. culminate in an order framing charge only after the accused is asked whether they plead guilty. Since the plea was not recorded, the charge was not effectively framed, and the petitioner was entitled to seek discharge.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Court below to dispose of Crl.M.P.Nos.27/2022, 28/2022 and 26/2022 seeking discharge within two weeks.

Renjith Pannackal Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO.161 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 28/2022 OF SPE/CBI COURT,

¶7

TRIVANDRUM

¶8

CC 2/2012 OF SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶10

RENJITH PANNACKAL, AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF P.K.ITTIKUNJU, SREYAS HOUSE, AYMANAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686008 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, TC 25/427, SHANTHI NAGAR, "ASHWINI", THIRUVANATHAPURAM. REP.BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. SMT.REKHA S (PP) SR.RAJESH A (SPECIAL PP) MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SRI. SUVIN R. MENON CGC

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.160/2022, 162/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶19

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶20

CRL.REV.PET NO. 160 OF 2022

¶21

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 27/2022 OF SPE/CBI COURT,

¶22

TRIVANDRUM

¶23

CC 4/2012 OF SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶24

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶25

RENJITH PANNACKAL, AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF P.K.ITTIKUNJU, SREYAS HOUSE, AYMANAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686008 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

¶28

BY ADVS. SMT.REKHA S (PP) SR.RAJESH A (SPECIAL PP) MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SUVIN R MENON CGC

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.161/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶31

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶35

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶36

CRL.REV.PET NO. 162 OF 2022

¶37

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 26/2022 OF SPE/CBI COURT,

¶38

TRIVANDRUM

¶39

CC 3/2012 OF SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶40

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶41

RENJITH PANNACKAL, AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF P.K.ITTIKUNJU, SREYAS HOUSE, AYMANAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686008 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶42

RESPONDENTS:

¶43

¶44

SMT.REKHA S (PP) SR.RAJESH A (SPECIAL PP) MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SRI.SUVIN.R.MENON, CGC

¶45

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.161/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶47

¶48

K.BABU, J.

¶49

Criminal R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶50

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2022

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

Would the proceedings as provided in Section 240 of the Code

¶53

of Criminal Procedure culminate in an order framing charge before the plea of the accused is taken? This is the short question raised

¶54

before me in these Criminal Revision Petitions.

¶55

The Revision Petitioner is alleged to have committed

¶56

various offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.

¶57

The Revision Petitioner challenged the final report by filing

¶58

Crl.M.C. Nos.167/2022, 155/2022 and 158/2022 before this Court. As

¶59

per common order dated 15.02.2022 this Court directed the Court below as follows:

¶60

“Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous cases are closed, without adverting to any contentions on merit, leaving the right open to the petitioner to seek discharge before the court below, if the charges are not framed. If such application is filed before the next posting date as above, the court below may consider it and pass orders thereon in accordance with law.”

¶61

Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.27/2022,

¶62

¶63

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶64

28/2022 and 26/2022 seeking discharge before the Court below. The

¶65

Court on 21.02.2022 passed the following order in the applications:

¶66

“Charge has been framed on 31.01.2022, hence this petition stands disposed of as per the order of the Honourable High court of Kerala in Crl.M.C.................”

¶67

The orders dated 21.02.2022 disposing of the Crl.M.Ps as above are

¶68

under challenge before this Court.

¶69

The learned counsel submitted that the Revision Petitioner

¶70

was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the proceedings of the Court below under Section 240 of the Cr.P.C have not culminated in an order framing charge as

¶71

the plea of the Revision Petitioner has not been taken.

¶72

The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the

¶73

CBI contended that as the first part of Section 240 Cr.PC is over, the process of framing of charge has become final and what is left is recording of the plea of the accused, a formality in which the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or not.

¶74

7. Section 240 of the Cr.PC reads thus:

¶75

“240. Framing of charge. (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this

¶76

¶77

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶78

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.

¶79

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

¶80

The learned Central Government Counsel contended that the construction of Section 240 Cr.PC by applying the golden rule of interpretation would lead to the conclusion that once the Court decides to frame charge and the charge is framed in writing, the process of framing of charge is over. It is further submitted that the procedure provided in sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC is an independent procedure to be undertaken after the framing of charge.

¶81

The learned Central Government Counsel argued that the word 'then' in sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC makes it clear that the process of framing of charge is confined to sub-section (1) of Section 240 Cr.PC.

¶82

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, per contra, contended that the act of framing of charge by the Court is completed only after the plea of the accused is taken.

¶83

The proceedings under Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.PC

¶84

¶85

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶86

are to be read together. In these proceedings, the Court considers

¶87

the police reports and the documents placed before it under Section 173 Cr.PC and makes such examination, if any, of the accused and gives the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard. If the Court considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, the Court passes an order of discharge under Section 239 Cr.PC. If the Court is of the opinion that there is ground that the accused has committed the offence, the Court passes an order framing charge against the accused under Section 240 Cr.PC. While passing an order of discharge under Section 239 Cr.PC, the Court shall give detailed reasons. In the case of passing an order framing charge, the Court need not assign detailed reasons.

¶88

As per sub-section (1) of Section 240 Cr.PC, once the Court forms an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the Court shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. As per sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC, the charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

¶89

¶90

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶91

While constructing Section 240 Cr.PC, sub-sections (1) and (2) are to be read together. The proceedings in Section 240 of the Cr.P.C culminate in an order framing charge when the charge is read over and explained to the accused and the plea of the accused as to whether he pleads guilty of the offence or claims to be tried is taken. The presence of the accused is required at this stage. Form No.32 provided in the second schedule of the Cr.PC, 1973, fortifies this view. Form No.32 reads thus:

¶92

“(1) (a) I, ….................................................(name and office of Magistrate, etc.), ….................................hereby charge you (name of accused person) as follows:—

¶93

(b) …..-.That you, on or about the …...............day of ….................... at

¶94

…......................., and thereby committed an offence punishable under section

¶95

….............. of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this Court.

¶96

¶97

(Signature and seal of the Magistrate)”

¶98

A meaningful interpretation of Section 240 of the Cr.P.C is

¶99

that the proceedings culminate in an order framing charge only after the plea of the accused is taken as per sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC. If Section 240 Cr.PC is interpreted in such a

¶100

¶101

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶102

manner that even before taking the plea of the accused there is an order framing charge, it will defeat the very purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC. The decision of the Apex Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan @ J.M. John Paul and Another (AIR 2010 SC 618) supports this view.

¶103

Admittedly, the plea of the Revision Petitioner was not recorded on 31.01.2022. What is discernible from the record (Annexure 1) is that the Court formed an opinion to frame charge against the accused.

¶104

As per order dated 15.02.2022 this Court permitted the Revision Petitioner to seek discharge before the Court below if charges were not framed. As per the impugned order, the Court disposed of those petitions holding that charge had already been framed on 31.01.2022. The proceedings dated 31.01.2022 had not culminated in an order framing charge.

¶105

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the Revision Petitioner to challenge the charge. The learned Central Government Counsel, per contra, contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the Revision

¶106

¶107

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶108

Petitioner. The impugned order does not say that the Revision Petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard.

¶109

The materials placed before the Court lead to the conclusion that as far as the petitioner is concerned, no meaningful hearing as provided in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C was conducted by the Court below. This Court had given the Revision Petitioner an opportunity to seek discharge before the Court below if charges were not framed. This Court has held that the proceedings in the Court below have not culminated in an order framing charge. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner is entitled to seek discharge before the Court below. Therefore, the Court below is directed to dispose of Crl.M.P.Nos.27/2022, 28/2022 and 26/2022 within a period of two weeks from this day.

¶110

The Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of as above.

¶111

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶112

KAS

¶113

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶114

¶115

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 160/2022

¶116

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-COURTS PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4/2012 OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.01.2022 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.167/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.02.2022

¶117

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶118

¶119

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 162/2022

¶120

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-COURTS PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3/2012 OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.01.2022 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.158/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.02.2022

¶121

Crl.R.P Nos.160, 161, 162 of 2022

¶122

¶123

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 161/2022

¶124

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE E-COURTS PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2/2012 OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.01.2022 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.155/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.02.2022

Renjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith Pannackal 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

K.Deleepkumar Vs State of Kerala

Maniyan Vs State of Kerala

Thankayyan (Thankan) Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Pannackal Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Pannackal Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala