IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 371 of 2010()
1. SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU, S/O.C.V.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :03/02/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
——————————————–
Cr. MC Nos.371 & 372 of 2010
——————————————–
Dated 3rd February 2010
Order
These two petitions have common issues to be
decided. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common
order.
2. The petitioner is the first accused in CC Nos.63/98
and 64/98 before the JFCM Court, Alathur for having committed
the offences punishable under Ss.27(4)(b) and 27(1)(e)(III)(iv)
of the Kerala Forest Act. It is unnecessary to go into the
allegations in detail, in view of the fact that these petitions can
be disposed of on a short ground.
3. The petitioner could not stand trial along with the
other accused persons and therefore, the cases against him were
split up and refiled. He has given the details of all the four cases
in which he is the accused, in these petitions.
4. The petitioner claims to be a Non-Resident-Indian
and businessman. He submits that he will always be on tour and
he is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the estate.
Therefore, he is totally innocent, it is submitted. It is pointed out
CRMC 371 & 372/10 2
by the petitioner that he had filed Criminal MC Nos.4223/05 and
4406/05 before this Court, praying to quash the proceedings in
CC Nos.63/98 and 534/98. Those petitions were dismissed by a
common order dated 24.10.2007, which is produced as
Annexure-II. The petitioner also pointed out that in both these
cases, he approached the learned Magistrate after passing
Annexure II order, by filing an application under S.245(2) of the
Cr.P.C., claiming discharge. The said petition has been
produced as Annexure-IV. The petitioner had also filed an
application under S.205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal
appearance, which is produced as Annexure V. He pointed out
that all the other accused in the connected cases, tried by the
Magistrate’s Court, have been acquitted and since he was not
available for trial, cases against him were split up and re-filed.
5. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of
his petitions for discharge and for dispensing with his personal
appearance, proceedings under S.82 Cr.PC have been resorted to
in both these cases. It is pointed out by him that without
considering the above petitions, the proceedings under S.82
Cr.PC ought not have been resorted to.
CRMC 371 & 372/10 3
6. The limited prayer of the petitioner in these
petitions is that until and unless his petitions for discharge and
for dispensing with his personal appearance, are considered,
further proceedings pursuant to Annexure VI orders, i.e.,
proceedings under S.82 Cr.P.C. may be kept in abeyance.
7. The above said prayer of the petitioner seems to
be just and reasonable. The Court below should first consider
the petitions filed by the petitioner for discharge and for
dispensing with his personal appearance and only thereafter,
proceedings under S.82 Cr.PC can be resorted to. Therefore,
these petitions are allowed to the limited extent that the Court
below shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioner for
discharge and for dispensing with his personal appearance and
only thereafter, the Court shall resort to proceed under S.82
Cr.PC.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
CRMC 371 & 372/10 4
CRMC 371 & 372/10 5