IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2436 of 2010()
1. T.S. SAMUEL, AGED 80 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.2436 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010.
O R D E R
The 3rd accused in C.P.No.29/10, on the file of the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate-Ramankary, in Crime No.229/09,
of Nedumudi Police Station is the revision petitioner as he is
aggrieved by the summons issued by the said court for the
appearance of the revision petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently
argued that, as there is no allegation of any overt act against the
revision petitioner connected with the commission of the offence,
merely because he being a registered owner of the vehicle, from
where the contraband article seized, he is not liable to be
prosecuted and as such according to the learned counsel, the
materials available on record are not sufficient to implicate the
revision petitioner in the offence. It is also the submission of the
learned counsel that, the revision petitioner is a retired Head
Master and now he had crossed the age of 80 years and as such
2
Crl. R.P.No.2436 of 2010
the summons is liable to be set aside.
3. I am unable to sustain the above contention of the
learned counsel at this time. Going by Annexure A1 FIR and A2
report, the offence alleged is a serious one and this court
especially at this stage, will not be justified in entering into any
finding regarding the merits of the case favouring the revision
petitioner and it is left open to the revision petitioner to take,
whatever defence he has at the time of the trial. Therefore, I find
no reason to interfere with the summons issued by the learned
Magistrate.
4. The learned counsel submitted that the revision
petitioner has crossed the age of 80 years, who is proposed to
file a petition for discharge. Ofcourse, the question of discharge
is to be considered by the trial court. Now only the summons has
issued and after the inquiry is over, it is for the learned Magistrate
to commit the case and it is open to the revision petitioner to
make request before the learned Magistrate for his exemption at
the time of committal of the case. I am sure that the learned
3
Crl. R.P.No.2436 of 2010
Magistrate will consider such a request on merit and he will insist
the presence of the accused/revision petitioner only if his
presence is inevitable and indispensable.
With the above observation, this criminal revision petition is
disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/