High Court Kerala High Court

A.K.N.Panicker vs The State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.K.N.Panicker vs The State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 811 of 2000()



1. A.K.N.PANICKER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.J.THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :21/05/2009

 O R D E R
                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                            CRL. R.P. NO.811 of 2000
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Dated this the   21st         day of May,    2009

                                   O R D E R

————–

Heard both sides.

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.782 of 1998 of the

court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. He filed Crl.M.P.

No.2457 of 2000 to close the evidence in the light of the decision in

Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 33 as

modified in Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC

775. Learned Magistrate as per the impugned order dismissed the

petition. Hence the revision.

3. It is seen from the order under challenge that originally

the case was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kottayam

and on 25.6.1997 the case was transferred to the court Judicial First

Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam. The case was pending in that court till

1.12.1998 and subsequently the case was transferred to the court of

Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. Learned Magistrate

observed that as per the clarificatory order dated 28.11.1996 in Writ

Petition (Civil)No.1128 of 1986 the directions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of

the decision in Common Cause’s case shall not apply to cases

CRL. R.P. NO.811 of 2000
-: 2 :-

relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate observed that the delay in

recording the evidence was due to the transfer of the case to the

different courts.

4. In view of the above factual situation and since the

decision in Common Cause’s case has been over ruled by the Apex

Court in Ramachanda Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2)

KLT 189) the contention of the petitioner that learned Magistrate

ought to have closed the evidence on account of the alleged delay

cannot be sustained.

Revision petition therefore fails. It is dismissed.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.4280 of 2001 and 4234 of

2001 shall stand dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

===================
CRL. R.P. NO.811 OF 2000
===================

O R D E R

21ST MAY, 2009