Kerala HC in Crl. Rev. Pet. 373/2011 dismissed the petition challenging acquittal. Court held proviso to S.372 CrPC applies as trial judgment was post-2009 amendment, granting statutory appeal right, thus revision is barred.
Revision petition dismissed as statutory remedy of appeal under proviso to S.372 CrPC is available.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 20TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 373 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT CC 45/2005 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
ANTO N.A., S/O LAZAR
NEYYAN HOUSE, KUMARANALLUR, OTTUPARA, WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED:
1THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & AN
REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,, C.B.I.- S.C.B.
CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY THE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
2REYNOLD.B.FERNADEZ
S/O.BENSIGAR, KURUSUMOODU VILLAGE,, CHENNIPUZHA,
CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
R.ANIL R
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI VENNELA
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI C.B.I.
B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)(R-260)
SUJESH MENON V.B.(S-1613)
THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT(KL/001082/2017)
MAHESH BHANU S.(K/1620/2018)
RESSIL LONAN(K/1251/2020)
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
DR. K.P. SATHEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P NO.373 OF 2011 2
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2023
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the
judgment in C.C. No.45/2005 passed by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, acquitting the second respondent. The revision petitioner was the brother of the deceased/victim in Crime No. RC.10/S/2003/CBI/SCB/Chennai and the second
respondent was the accused before the Trial Court.
Factual narrative
Crl.R.P NO.373 OF 2011 3
on the same night. Hence, the accused committed the offence under Sections 304(A) and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.R.P NO.373 OF 2011 4
the victim or his guardian/legal heirs to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. The proviso to Section 372 was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by the (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5/2009) w.e.f. 31.12.2009.
Crl.R.P NO.373 OF 2011 5
Act to file an appeal by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. Even if an appeal is filed after
the prescribed period of limitation, only an affidavit explaining the delay need be filed.
Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the revision petitioner to file an appeal, as observed above, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm12/10//2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC regarding appeal by victim applies to offences committed before the 2009 amendment.
Whether this court can entertain a criminal revision petition when a statutory right of appeal exists for the petitioner.
Whether limitation period under Limitation Act bars filing of appeal by victim under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of KarnatakaRelied on¶35
Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka [2018 (4) KLT 682 (SC)]
Sobhanakumari K. v. Santhosh @ Pallan ShajiRelied on¶37
Sobhanakumari K. v. Santhosh @ Pallan Shaji [2018 (1) KHC 195]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ano N.A.
The Central Bureau of Investigation
Reynold.B.Fernandez
C.S.Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court