IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1214 of 2001()
1. V05~JIKUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAKKAN SINGH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :30/11/2007
O R D E R
A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No. 1214 of 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
This revision petition, which was filed way back in the year 2001, is
directed against the judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1/accused in a
case registered for offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304(A)
IPC. The trial court acquitted the 1st respondent, since the prosecution had
failed to produce CWs.1 to 3 before the court for examination. According to
the trial court, the prosecution had failed to produce witnesses though
several chances were given.
2. The revision petitioner who is CW6 in the case had also suffered
multiple grievous injuries. According to the petitioner, the trial court ought
to have examined him and the remaining witnesses even assuming presence
of CWs.1 to 3 could not be procured. No reasons have been stated by the
trial court as to why summons were not issued to the remaining witnesses,
including the petitioner.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that the procedure adopted by the trial court is illegal and irregular.
The trial court has vaguely referred to a decision of the Supreme Court
reported in Raj Deo Sharma (II) V. State of Bihar ((1999)7 SCC 604)) while
CRL.R.P.1214/01 2
acquitting the respondent No.1. But obviously the learned Magistrate has
not considered the decision Raj Deo Sharma (II) V. State of Bihar (Supra).
It is not discernible as to how the principles in the above case would be
applicable in the case on hand. Obviously the trial court had overlooked the
subsequent decisions on the same issue. In any view of the matter, the
procedure adopted by the trial court cannot be justified.
4. It is seen that the respondent No.1/accused has not been served
with notice so far. Notice has been taken out by the petitioner at the address
shown in the trial court records. But it is not clear whether notice had been
served on him or not. Even if respondent No.1 appears before this court, the
only option available will be to remit the case back to the trial court after
setting aside the judgment of acquittal. In that view of the matter, non
servicing of notice on the accused is of no consequences.
5. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.282/98 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karunagappally is set aside. The
case is remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
The trial court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
A.K. Basheer,
Judge.
mn
CRL.R.P.1214/01 3
A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No. 1214 of 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O R D E R
30th day of November, 2007