High Court Kerala High Court

Ravi @ Kadukka Ravi vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ravi @ Kadukka Ravi vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2307 of 2010()


1. RAVI @ KADUKKA RAVI, AGED 46 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :28/06/2010

 O R D E R
                         V.RAMKUMAR, J.
                  -------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C.No.2307 of 2010
                  --------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010

                                ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in S.T.No.1266 of 2010

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Attingal

for an offence punishable under Section 4(1A) read with

Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and

Development)Act, 1957. The petitioners seek to quash

Annexure A1 F.I.R. and the subsequent proceedings pending

before the Magistrate. The above case involve summons trial.

2. It is too early for this Court, exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the complaint and

subsequent proceedings and also consider whether the

ingredients of the offences are made out in the prosecution

records. The Magistrate can state the substance of

accusation to the accused and record their plea under Section

251 Cr.P.C only if the substance of accusation contains the

ingredients of the offence alleged. In the light of the decision

in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 617),

it is open to the petitioners to raise the present contentions at

the time when the learned Magistrate records their plea

under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

Crl.M.C.No.2307/2010
: 2 :

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for

exemption from appearance while raising the above plea

before the Magistrate. I am inclined to permit the petitioners

to be represented through their counsel. Accordingly, if the

petitioners file a petition for exemption during the stage of

251 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall consider the

contention of the petitioners while recording their plea

without insisting on their personal appearance. The plea of

the accused can be recorded through their counsel.

This Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of as above.

Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

skj