{"id":132035,"date":"2005-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005"},"modified":"2014-06-01T20:53:52","modified_gmt":"2014-06-01T15:23:52","slug":"l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 534 of 1992\n\n\n1. L.S.ASOKAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n1. STATE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :     03\/08\/2005\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
.PL 56
\n.TM 2
\n.SP 2
\n.BM 2
\n          K.PADMANABHAN NAIR , V.RAMKUMAR,@@
\n        j
\n         & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.@@
\n        j\n<\/p>\n
         ———————-@@
\n        j
\n         Crl.Appeal  Nos.  534\/92,  537\/92, @@
\n        j
\n         597\/92,   686\/92, 697\/92, 9\/1993, 22\/93, 100\/93@@
\n        j
\n         114\/93, 118\/93, 119\/93, 125\/1993, 126\/93 & 136\/1993@@
\n        j\n<\/p>\n
         ———————-@@
\n        j
\n         Dated, this the 3rd   day of August   2005@@
\n        j<\/p>\n
         ORDER@@
\n        jEEEEE
\n        Ramkumar, J.@@
\n        EEEEEEEEEEEE
\n((HDR 0
\nCrl.Appeal Nos. 534, 537, 597, 686, 697\/1992
\nCrl.Appeal Nos.9\/93, 22\/93, 100\/93, 114\/93
\n118\/93, 119\/93, 125\/93, 126\/93 & 136\/93.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t:#:\n<\/p>\n
))
\n.HE 1
\n        \tThe  interesting  question  which  comes  up  for
\n        consideration  before  us  upon a reference by a Division
\n        Bench is the following:-\n<\/p>\n
         “Whether the statement of  an  approver  examined@@
\n        i
\n                before  the  appropriate  Magistrate under clause\n<\/p>\n
                (a) of sub Sec.    (4)  of  Sec.306  Cr.P.C.,  is
\n                relevant and  admissible  under  Sec.   33 of the
\n                Evidence Act during the subsequent trial in which
\n                he is not available for examination by reason  of
\n                his death in the meanwhile ?”\n<\/p>\n
        The  referring Bench was of the opinion that in the light
\n        of divergent views expressed by two Division  Benches  of
\n        this Court  in  Kurian v.  State – 1989 (1) KLT (SN) 37 -@@
\n                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Case No.60 and State of Kerala v.  Monu Surendran<\/a> –  1990@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (1)  KLT  53,  regarding  the  right  to cross-examine an@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        approver, an authoritative pronouncement must come from a
\n        larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        \t2.\tThe appellants in this batch  of  appeals
\n        were the accused in the same or different cases popularly
\n        known  as  “the  mark  list  cases”  tried by the Special
\n        Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram upon a committal.  For
\n        recording the  conviction  against  the  appellants,  the
\n        trial  court  had,  inter  alia,  relied on the statement
\n        recorded under Sec.  306(4)(a) Cr.P.C.   of  one  Anandan
\n        who was made an approver.  The said Anandan died prior to
\n        the trial of the cases before the Special Sessions Court.
\n        The main argument on behalf of the appellants is that the
\n        evidence given  by  the deceased approver under Sec.  306
\n        (4)(a) Cr.P.C.  should not have been  relied  on  by  the
\n        trial  court  since  the same was inadmissible under Sec.
\n        33 of the Evidence Act because the  appellants  who  were
\n        the   adverse   party   in  the  proceedings  before  the
\n        Magistrate taking cognizance of  the  offences,  did  not
\n        have  the  right and the opportunity to cross-examine the
\n        approver within the  meaning  of  the  2nd  limb  of  the
\n        proviso to Sec.    33  of  the Evidence Act.  There is no
\n        dispute that some of the  appellants  had  cross-examined
\n        the approver  during  his  examination  under  Sec.   306
\n        (4)(a) Cr.P.C.  pursuant to a remit from  this  Court  at
\n        the instance of the State (and not at the instance of the
\n        accused)  which  contended  that  the  committal of those
\n        cases to the Sessions Court and subsequent making over of
\n        the same to the Assistant Sessions Court for  trial  were
\n        bad  inter-alia  for  the  failure  to  cross-examine the
\n        approver by the accused.  It is  the  contention  of  the
\n        appellants  that  in  those  cases  where the accused had
\n        cross-examined the approver,  it  was  not  as  of  right
\n        within  the  meaning of the second limb of the proviso to
\n        Sec.  33 of the Evidence Act  and  that  in  those  cases
\n        where  the  accused  had  not cross-examined the approver
\n        they  had  neither  the  right  nor  the  opportunity  to
\n        cross-examine  the  approver  within  the  meaning of the
\n        above provision.\n<\/p>\n
        \t3.\tWe       heard       Senior      Advocate\n        Sri.M.K.Damodaran, Senior  Advocate  Sri.G.    Janardhana\n<\/pre>\n
        Kurup  and  Advocate  Sri.Surendra Mohan representing all
\n        the appellants and Advocate Sri.  Sujith Mathew Jose, the
\n        learned Public Prosecutor who represented the State.\n<\/p>\n
        \t4.\tThe learned Public  Prosecutor  made  the
\n        following  submissions  before us opposing the appellants
\n        on the above issue:-\n<\/p>\n
        \tThe decision of the Division  Bench  reported  in
\n        1990 (1)  KLT 53 – State of Kerala v.  Monu Surendran<\/a> was@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        rendered in one of the cases arising from the  very  same
\n        batch.   It  has  correctly laid down the law that during
\n        the examination of the approver as a witness  under  Sec.
\n        306(4)(a)   in   the   court  of  the  Magistrate  taking
\n        cognizance, the accused has a right to cross-examine  the
\n        approver.  Sec.   273  Cr.P.C.    states  that “except as
\n        otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken  in  the
\n        course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in
\n        the  presence  of  the  accused,  or,  when  his personal
\n        attendance is dispensed with,  in  the  presence  of  his
\n        pleader”.  Sec.    137 of the Evidence Act indicates that
\n        examination   of   a   witness    not    only    includes
\n        examination-in-chief but  also  cross-examination.  There
\n        is a subtle distinction between  the  examination  of  an
\n        approver as  a  witness  under  Sec.    306(4)(a) and the
\n        examination of a witness under Secs.  200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
\n        While in the case of the former, the approver is examined
\n        at the post-cognizance stage, in the case of  the  latter
\n        the examination is at the pre-cognizance stage.  When the
\n        Chief Judicial Magistrate tenders pardon to an accomplice
\n        during  the  stage  of  an investigation he is not taking
\n        cognizance of an offence.  But when the Magistrate taking
\n        cognizance of the offence  examines  the  approver  under
\n        Sec.   306(4)(a) the accused has a right to cross-examine
\n        the approver unlike in the case of a witness examined  in
\n        an enquiry under Sec.  202 Cr.P.C.  It is true that there
\n        are observations  in  (Suresh  Chandra Bahri v.  State of@@
\n                              AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Bihar – 1995 SCC (Crl) 60, Ranadhir Basu  v.    State  of@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        West  Bengal  (2000)  3  SCC  161  and  State of Himachal@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Pradesh v.  Surinder Mohan and Others<\/a> – (2000) 2 SCC 396)@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        to  the  effect  that  the  accused  have  no  right   of
\n        cross-examination  of  the  approver  examined under Sec.
\n        306 (4) Cr.P.C.  But every decision has to be  understood
\n        with  reference  to  the facts situation obtained in such
\n        case, as has been held in Padma Sundara Rao v.  State  of@@
\n                                  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        T.N.   2002 (3) SCC 533 and Haryana Financial Corporation@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        v.  Jagdamba Oil Mills 2002 (3) SCC  496.    Hence  those@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        accused  who  had  cross-examined  the  approver  had the
\n        opportunity to do so and the cross-examination  was  also
\n        as   of   right  making  the  evidence  of  the  approver
\n        admissible under  Sec.    33   of   the   Evidence   Act.
\n        Opportunity   to   cross-examine  does  not  mean  actual
\n        cross-examination  but  only  providing   a   chance   to
\n        cross-examine  and  it is for the accused to avail of the
\n        same.   Hence,  those  accused  persons   who   did   not
\n        cross-examine  the  approver,  were  not  availing of the
\n        opportunity to do so in spite  of  having  been  given  a
\n        right  to  cross-examine the approver and the evidence of
\n        the approver,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  is
\n        admissible under Sec.  33 of the Evidence Act in the case
\n        of those accused persons as well.\n<\/p>\n
        \t5.\tWe  are  afraid that we cannot agree with
\n        the above submissions made on behalf of the State.  It is
\n        common ground that the statement of the approver examined
\n        under Sec.  306(4)(a) Cr.P.C.    would  be  relevant  and
\n        admissible under Sec.  33 of the Evidence Act only if the
\n        accused  persons  not  only  had the “right” but also the
\n        “opportunity” to cross-examine the approver at that stage
\n        within the meaning of the second limb of the  proviso  to
\n        Sec.    33   which   has   used   the   said  expressions
\n        conjunctively and not disjunctively.  The argument of the
\n        learned  Public  Prosecutor  that  the   examination   of
\n        witnesses under Secs.    200  and  202 Cr.P.C.  is at the
\n        pre-cognizance stage stems from a  misconception  of  the
\n        law.   There  is  indeed  a  popular misconception that a
\n        Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance  only  when  he
\n        actually  records  the sworn statement of the complainant
\n        and his witnesses if  any,  and  issues  process  to  the
\n        accused.   The  correct  legal  position  is  that when a
\n        Magistrate on receiving a complaint applies his mind  and
\n        decides  to  proceed under the various provisions such as
\n        Secs.  200 or 202 of Chapter XV Cr.P.C.,  the  Magistrate
\n        must  be  held  to  have  taken cognizance of the offence
\n        mentioned in the complaint.  If, however, the Magistrate,
\n        instead of proceeding under Chapter XV  Cr.P.C.,  decides
\n        to  forward the complaint to the police for investigation
\n        under Sec.  156 (3) Cr.P.C.  or issues a  search  warrant
\n        for  the  purpose  of investigation, he cannot be said to
\n        have taken cognizance of any offence.  (See R.R.    Chari@@
\n                                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        v.  State of U.P.  – AIR 1951 SC 207, Gopal Das Sindhi v.@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        State of  Assam and Anr.  – AIR 1961 SC 986, Jamuna Singh@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        v.  Bhadai Shah AIR 1964 SC 1541 and  D.Laxminarayana  v.@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        V.Narayana –  AIR  1976  SC 1672.  Thus, if a Magistrate,@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        upon receiving  a  complaint,  after  applying  his  mind
\n        decides  to record the sworn statement of the complainant
\n        he can be said to have taken cognizance of  the  offence.
\n        It  is  not the requirement of law to actually record the
\n        sworn statement  or  proceed  to  issue  summons  to  the
\n        accused   to  conclude  that  the  Magistrate  has  taken
\n        cognizance of the offence  mentioned  in  the  complaint.
\n        Hence   the   examination  of  the  complainant  and  his
\n        witnesses under Sec.200 and  the  subsequent  inquiry  if
\n        any, under Sec.   202 Cr.P.C.  after postponing the issue
\n        of process against the accused, are all  steps  taken  in
\n        the proceedings at the post-cognizance stage.\n<\/p>\n
        \t6.\tIt  is  now  well settled that during the
\n        course of inquiry under Sec.  202 Cr.P.C.    the  accused
\n        has  no right to take part in the proceedings nor has the
\n        Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit the accused  to  do
\n        so and that it would not be open to the Magistrate to put
\n        any  question  to  those witnesses at the instance of the
\n        person shown as the accused against whom process has  not
\n        been issued.   (See the decision of a four-judge Bench of
\n        the Supreme Court  in  Chandra  Deo  Singh  v.    Prokash@@
\n                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose – AIR 1963 SC 1430).  The scope@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        of inquiry under Sec.  202 Cr.P.C.  is a very limited one
\n        and  that  is  to  find  out whether there are sufficient
\n        ground for proceeding against  the  accused  who  has  no
\n        right  to  participate  therein  much  less  a  right  to
\n        cross-examine any witness examined  by  the  prosecution,
\n        but he may remain present only with a view to be informed
\n        of what is  going on.  (See Sashi Jena v.  Khadal Swain<\/a> -@@
\n                               AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        AIR 2004 SC 1492).@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
        \t7.\tEven though reliance was  placed  by  the
\n        counsel  for  the  appellants on the decision reported in
\n        2001 (2) KLT 767 – Gopalakrishnan v.  State of Kerala<\/a>  to@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        contend   for   the  position  that  in  a  warrant  case
\n        instituted on a private  complaint  the  accused  has  no
\n        right  to  cross-examine  the prosecution witnesses whose
\n        evidence is recorded under Sec.  244  Cr.P.C.,  the  said
\n        provision is  not  similarly worded as Secs.  200, 202 or
\n        306 (4)(a) Cr.P.C.  and, therefore,  no  analogy  can  be
\n        drawn therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
        \t8.\tBoth  under  Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
\n        what  is  contemplated  is  examination   of   witnesses.
\n        Likewise, under Sec.  306(4)(a) also what is envisaged is
\n        examination of the approver as a witness.  It has already
\n        been  seen  that  during  the  course  of  examination of
\n        witnesses under Sec.  200 and 202 Cr.P.C.    the  accused
\n        has no  right  to cross-examine them.  What is to be seen
\n        now is as to whether the examination of the approver as a
\n        witness under Sec.    306  (4)(a)  Cr.P.C.    is   anyway
\n        different  from  the  examination of a witness under Sec.
\n        202 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        \t9.\tIt may be relevant  in  this  context  to
\n        examine  the  mechanics behind the tender of pardon to an
\n        accomplice and his  examination  before  the  Magistrate.
\n        While  the  Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan
\n        Magistrate as well as a Magistrate of  First  Class  have
\n        the  power  to  tender pardon to an accomplice under Sec.
\n        306(1) Cr.P.C.  a close reading  of  the  said  provision
\n        will  indicate  that  in  the  case  of  a Chief Judicial
\n        Magistrate or a Metropolitan  Magistrate,  the  power  to
\n        tender  pardon  to  an  accomplice  is available not only
\n        during the stage of inquiry or trial but also during  the
\n        stage of investigation and such Chief Judicial Magistrate
\n        or  Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, need not
\n        be himself enquiring into or trying the offence.  But  in
\n        the  case  of  a  Magistrate of First Class, the power to
\n        tender pardon to an accomplice can be exercised  only  by
\n        the  Magistrate  enquiring into or trying the offence and
\n        the power is available to be exercised only at the  stage
\n        of  such  inquiry  or trial and no such power is given at
\n        the stage of investigation.  (Vide A.Devendran v.   State@@
\n                                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        of T.N.   1997  (11)  SCC 720).  The above provision will@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        further show that  the  person  to  whom  the  pardon  is
\n        tendered need  not  be an accused.  It is enough if he is
\n        directly or  indirectly  concerned  in  or  privy  to  an
\n        offence of the category falling under Sec.  306(2).  That
\n        is  presumably why the title of the Section only mentions
\n        the word “accomplice” and not “accused”.  Sec.   306  (2)
\n        indicates  the  category  of  offences to which tender of
\n        pardon to an accomplice could be  given  under  the  said
\n        provision.  Sec.    306  (3)  lays down the procedure for
\n        tender of pardon.  Every Magistrate who tenders a  pardon
\n        under sub Sec.  (1) of Sec.  306 is bound to record -@@
\n                                                     CCCCCC\n<\/p>\n
         a) his reason for so doing@@
\n        i  i\n<\/p>\n
         b) whether   the   tender  was  or  was  not@@
\n        i  i
\n                        accepted by the person  to  whom  it  was
\n                        made.\n<\/p>\n
        Sub Section (2) of Sec.  308 indicates that the statement
\n        of  the  person  accepting  the  tender  pardon  is to be
\n        recorded by the Magistrate under Sec.  164  Cr.P.C.    By
\n        virtue of  Sec.  306(1) tender of pardon to an accomplice
\n        can only be on condition that he will  make  a  full  and
\n        true  disclosure  of  the entire circumstances within his
\n        knowledge relating  to  the  offence.    Thus,  when  the
\n        accomplice in  his  statement  under  Sec.    164 Cr.P.C.
\n        accepts the tender of pardon made by the  Magistrate,  it
\n        is  subject to the condition that he will make a full and
\n        true disclosure of the entire  circumstances  within  his
\n        knowledge.\n<\/p>\n
        \t10.\tThe object of the provision for tendering
\n        pardon  to  an  accomplice  is  to  get evidence in cases
\n        involving grave offences alleged to have  been  committed
\n        by   several   persons   under  circumstances  making  it
\n        difficult to get any evidence  otherwise.    No  clue  or
\n        trace  of  the offence might have been left behind by the
\n        perpetrators of the  crime.    The  dominant  purpose  of
\n        pardon is that the culprits behind such heinous and grave
\n        crimes  do  not  go unpunished if a co-participant of the
\n        crime comes forward offering to make a clean brest of his
\n        own complicity  as  also  the  complicity  of  the  other
\n        offenders.    Evidence   is   accordingly   collected  by
\n        tendering pardon  to  a  person  supposed  to  have  been
\n        directly  or  indirectly  concerned  in  or  privy to the
\n        offence.  What is tendered is a conditional pardon.   The
\n        condition is that he will make a full and true disclosure
\n        of   the   entire   circumstances  within  his  knowledge
\n        concerning the offence and concerning every other  person
\n        involved in   the   commission   of  the  offence.    The
\n        conditional pardon so tendered is thus a contract between
\n        the accomplice and the State and  the  consideration  for
\n        the  same  qua  the  accomplice  is  the exoneration from
\n        liability and the consideration  qua  the  State  is  the
\n        agreement to  make  a  full and true disclosure.  (See In@@
\n                                                          AAAAAAA
\n        re.   Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Trviandrum   –   1988@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Crl.L.J.  812  and Narayan Chethanram Chaudhary v.  State@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAA      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        of Maharashtra – 2000 (8)  SCC  457).    Once  pardon  is@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        granted  to  an accused he ceases to be an accused person
\n        and becomes a witness  for  the  prosecution  (See  State@@
\n                                                      AAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (Delhi Administration)  v.    Jagjit  Singh<\/a> – AIR 1989 SC@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
        598.  When the approver resiles from  the  agreement  and@@
\n        AAAA
\n        breaks the conditional pardon, the contract is broken and
\n        the  State  becomes entitled to prosecute him by recourse
\n        to Sec.  308 Cr.P.C.  (Vide para 6 of 1988 Crl.L.J.   812@@
\n                                              AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (Supra)).   It  is  to  ensure  that the approver who has@@
\n        AAAAAAAA
\n        accepted the conditional pardon, makes a  full  and  true
\n        disclosure of the entire facts within his knowledge, that
\n        he  is examined as a witness before the Magistrate taking
\n        cognizance of  the  offence  under  Sec.    306(4)(a)  of
\n        Cr.P.C.   The  said  provision  further mandates that the
\n        approver shall be examined in the subsequent trial also.\n<\/p>\n
        \t11.\tWhat now falls to be considered is as  to
\n        whether  there is any difference in the nature of enquiry
\n        under Sec.  202 Cr.P.C.  and Sec.  306(4)  Cr.P.C.    and
\n        whether the accused persons have a right to cross-examine
\n        the  approver  during his examination as a witness before
\n        the Magistrate taking cognizance under Sec.   306  (4)(a)
\n        Cr.P.C.   If the said examination of the approver is akin
\n        to the examination of witnesses under Sec.  200  and  202
\n        Cr.P.C., then, as has already been seen, the accused have
\n        no  right  to  cross-examine  the approver at that stage.
\n        That was the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this
\n        Court in 1988 Crl.L.J.  812 (Supra)  referred  to  above.@@
\n                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        The  said  decision  was  relied  on  and  followed  by a
\n        Division Bench of this Court in Kurian v.  State  –  1989@@
\n                                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (1) KLT S.N.    Case  No.60.    However,  in a subsequent@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Division Bench in State of Kerala v.  Monu Surendran<\/a> 1990@@
\n                          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (1) KLT 53, the very same learned  Judge  (U.L.Bhat,  J.)@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAA
\n        who  rendered  the  decision  for  the Bench in Kurian v.@@
\n                                                        AAAAAAAAA
\n        State, speaking for the Bench in  Monu  Surendran’s  case@@
\n        AAAAA                             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        observed  that  in  the  light of the decisions in Sanjay@@
\n                                                           AAAAAA
\n        Gandhi v.  Union of India – AIR 1978  SC  514  and  State@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (Delhi Administration)  v.    Jaggit  Singh<\/a> – AIR 1989 SC@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        598, the  accused  have  a  right  to  cross-examine  the@@
\n        AAAA
\n        approver examined  under  Sec.    306 (4)(a) and that the
\n        above decisions of the Apex Court were not brought to the
\n        notice of the Division Bench in Kurian v.   State.    The@@
\n                                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        later  Division Bench also held that the decisions of the
\n        Single Judge in In re.  Chief Judl.Magistrate, Trivandrum@@
\n                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        and that of the Division Bench in Kurian V.   State  were@@
\n                                          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        per  incuriam  and  directed  the Chief Judl.Magistrate ,@@
\n                                          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Trivandrum (who had committed some of the  cases  to  the@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAA
\n        Sessions Court without examining the approver) to examine
\n        the  approver  giving  an  opportunity  to the accused to
\n        cross-examine the approver and  then  to  deal  with  the
\n        matter in  accordance  with  law.  It was pursuant to the
\n        above direction that the approver  was  examined  by  the
\n        Chief  Judl.Magistrate  and  some  of  the appellants had
\n        cross-examined the approver also.\n<\/p>\n
        \t12.\tIn Sanjay Gandhi v.  Union of India<\/a>  –  a@@
\n             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        two  Judges  Bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  observed  as
\n        follows:\n<\/p>\n
         ”\tWe have heard counsel on both  sides  and@@
\n        i
\n                proceed  to  elucidate certain clear propositions
\n                under the new Code bearing upon the committal  of
\n                cases where the offence is triable exclusively by
\n                the Court  of Session.  The Committing Magistrate
\n                in such cases  has  no  power  to  discharge  the
\n                accused.   Nor has he power to take oral evidence
\n                save  where  a  specific  provision  like   S.306
\n                enjoins.   From this it follows that the argument
\n                that the accused has to cross-examine is  out  of
\n                bounds  for  the  Magistrate  save in the case of
\n                approvers.     No    examination-in-chief,     no
\n                cross-examination”.\n<\/p>\n
        The  above  observation  was  made  in  the backdrop of a
\n        grievance raised by the accused therein that he  did  not
\n        get sufficient time before the committal court to inspect
\n        the  voluminous  police  records running into about 20000
\n        pages and the thrust of the argument was that the accused
\n        has a  right  of  cross-examination  of  the  prosecution
\n        witnesses before  the  committal  court.  Eventhough some
\n        breathing time was granted to the  accused  by  the  Apex
\n        Court, the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was
\n        not granted.\n<\/p>\n
        \t13.\tIn Devendran v.    State  of T.N.  – 1997@@
\n         AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (11) SCC  720,  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  granted@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        pardon  to  one of the accused after the committal of the
\n        case to the Court of Sessions  which  court  alone  could
\n        grant pardon  to the accused in view of Sec.  307 Cr.P.C.
\n        This was held to be an  irregularity  not  curable  under
\n        Sec.  465  Cr.P.C.    While  evaluating the evidence, the
\n        Supreme Court eschewed the evidence of the approver  from
\n        consideration.  Hence, on facts, the said decision has no
\n        application to the present cases.\n<\/p>\n
        \t14.\tIn   State   (Delhi   Administration)  v.@@
\n         AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Jaggit Singh – AIR 1989 SC 598 = 1989 Suppl.  (2) SCC 770@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        what has been held is that examination  of  the  approver
\n        both in the committal court as well as the trial court is
\n        mandatory.    Both   sides   do  not  dispute  the  above
\n        proposition.  The only  dispute  is  as  to  whether  the
\n        expression “examination” would include cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
        \t15.\tIn Suresh  Chandra  Bahri  v.    State of@@
\n                AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Bihar (1995 Suppl.  (1) SCC 80) a reading of paragraph 31@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        thereof will show that the defect of  non-examination  of
\n        the   approver   before  the  Chief  Judl.Magistrate  was
\n        rectified by a remand from  the  Sessions  Court  to  the
\n        Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  who thereafter complied with
\n        the requirement under Sec.    306(4)  Cr.P.C.    It  was,
\n        therefore,   held  that  the  subsequent  trial  was  not
\n        vitiated  for  the   alleged   non-compliance   of   Sec.
\n        306(4)(a) Cr.P.C.  the compliance of which was held to be
\n        mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
        \t16.\tIn  Narayan  Chetanram Cahdhary & Another@@
\n                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        v.   State  of  Maharashtra  –  2000  (8)  SCC  457   the@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        application for  pardon was filed under Sec.  307 Cr.P.C.
\n        after the committal and before trial.  Hence there was no
\n        obligation on the trial court or a right in favour of the
\n        accused in insist  on  compliance  with  the  requirement
\n        under Section 306 (4).\n<\/p>\n
        \t17.\tIn Ranadhir Basu v.  State of West Bengal<\/a>@@
\n                AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        (2000)  3  SCC  161  the  question  pointedly arose as to@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        whether the accused have a right of cross-examination  of
\n        the approver  during  his  examination  under  Sec.   306
\n        (4)(a) of Cr.P.C.  This is what the apex  court  held  in
\n        paragraph 7:\n<\/p>\n
         “It  was  contended  by  Mr.Muralidhar,   learned@@
\n        i
\n                counsel  appearing  for the appellant that Sudipa
\n                was not “examined as a witness”  as  contemplated
\n                by Section  306(4)  Cr.P.C.    He  submitted that
\n                Sudipa was examined  by  the  Magistrate  in  his
\n                chamber  and  not  in  the open court and at that
\n                time the accused were  not  kept  present.    Her
\n                evidence was  subjected to cross-examination.  In
\n                support of his  submission  he  relied  upon  the
\n                decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v.@@
\n                                          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n                State of  Bihar.    In that case this Court after@@
\n                AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n                pointing out the object and purpose  of  enacting
\n                Section 306(4)  Cr.P.C.  had ruled that since the
\n                provision had been made for the  benefit  of  the
\n                accused it must be regarded as mandatory.  It had
\n                observed therein that :(SCC p.101,para 30).
\n          \t“The  object   and   purpose   in@@
\n        ii
\n                        enacting   this  mandatory  provision  is
\n                        obviously intended to provide a safeguard
\n                        to the accused in as much as the approver
\n                        has to make a  statement  disclosing  his
\n                        evidence  at the preliminary stage before
\n                        the  committal  order  is  made  and  the
\n                        accused  not  only  becomes  aware of the
\n                        evidence  against  him  but  he  is  also
\n                        afforded  an opportunity to meet with the@@
\n                        CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                        evidence  of  an  approver   before   the@@
\n                        CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                        committing   court  itself  at  the  very@@
\n                        CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                        threshold….”@@
\n                        CCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n        \t\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)
\n         From this observation it does not follow that the@@
\n        i
\n                person who is granted pardon must be examined  in
\n                the  presence of the accused and that the accused
\n                has a right to appear and  cross-examine  him  at
\n                that stage also.  As pointed out by this Court in
\n                that case the object is to provide an opportunity
\n                to  the  accused  to  show  to the Court that the
\n                approver’s evidence at the trial is untrustworthy
\n                in view of  the  contradictions  or  improvements
\n                made  by  him  during  his evidence at the trial.
\n                Considering the object and purpose  of  examining
\n                the  person  accepting  tender  of  pardon  as  a
\n                witness is thus limited.  The  proceedings  which
\n                takes  place  before the Magistrate at that stage
\n                is neither an inquiry nor a  trial.    Therefore,
\n                the submission of the learned counsel that Sudipa
\n                should  have  been  examined as a witness in open
\n                court and not in the chamber and that  while  she
\n                was  examined the Magistrate should have kept the
\n                accused  present  and   afforded   to   them   an
\n                opportunity  to  cross-examine  Sudipa  cannot be
\n                accepted.  The phrase “examination of a  witness”@@
\n                           CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                does   not   necessarily   mean  examination  and@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                cross-examination of that witness.  What type  of@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                examination  of  a  witness is contemplated would@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                depend  upon  the  object  and  purpose  of  that@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                provision.  Section    202    Cr.P.C.        also@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                contemplates examination of witness  yet  it  has@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                been  held, considering the object and purpose of@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                that provision, that the  accused  has  no  locus@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n                standi at that stage”.@@
\n                CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n        \t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
        \t18.\tIn State of Himachal Pradesh v.  Surinder<\/a>@@
\n                AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Mohan  and  others  ((2000)  2  SCC 396) the approver was@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        examined under Sec.  306 (4)  (a)  Cr.P.C.    before  the
\n        Chief  Judl.Magistrate  and  he was subsequently examined
\n        and cross-examined  during  trial  before  the  Court  of
\n        Session.   At  the stage of arguments before the Sessions
\n        Court, it was contended for the first time  that  failure
\n        to  give  an opportunity for the accused to cross-examine
\n        the approver before committal  court  would  vitiate  the
\n        trial.   The  said contention was repelled by the Supreme
\n        Court  holding  that  the  said  contention  was   raised
\n        belatedly  and  that even if the accused had the right to
\n        cross-examine  the  approver  when  examined  under  Sec.
\n        306(4)(a) Cr.P.C, the defect would stand cured under Sec.
\n        465 Cr.P.C.    Dealing with the contention of the accused
\n        regarding the alleged right of cross-examination, this is
\n        what the apex court held in para 11 :\n<\/p>\n
         “From the aforesaid ingredients, it is abundantly@@
\n        i
\n                clear that at the stage of investigation, inquiry
\n                or trial of  the  offence,  the  person  to  whom
\n                pardon  is  to  be granted, is to be examined for
\n                collecting  the  evidence  of  a  person  who  is
\n                directly  or  indirectly concerned in or privy to
\n                an offence.  At  the  time  of  investigation  or
\n                inquiry into an offence, the accused cannot claim
\n                any right under law to cross-examine the witness.
\n                The  right  to cross-examination would arise only
\n                at the time of  trial.    During  the  course  of
\n                investigation  by  the  police,  the  question of
\n                cross-examination by the accused does not  arise.
\n                Similarly, under Sec.    200  Cr.P.C.    when the
\n                Magistrate  before  taking  cognizance   of   the
\n                offence,  that  is,  before issuing process holds
\n                the inquiry, the  accused  has  no  right  to  be
\n                heard,    and,   therefore,   the   question   of
\n                cross-examination does not arise.   Further,  the
\n                person to whom pardon is granted, is examined but
\n                is   not   offered   for   cross-examination  and
\n                thereafter during trial if  he  is  examined  and
\n                cross-examined  then  there is no question of any
\n                prejudice caused to the accused.  In such  cases,
\n                at  the  most  the accused may lose the chance to
\n                cross-examine the approver twice, that is to say,
\n                once before committal and the other at  the  time
\n                of trial”.\n<\/p>\n
        It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 12 of the above
\n        decision  the  apex court has adverted to the decision of
\n        the learned Single Judge of this Court  reported  in  In.@@
\n                                                              AAA
\n        re:    Chief   Judicial  Magistrate,  Trivandrum  –  1988@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        Crl.L.J.  812 and what is important to  observe  is  that@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        the  apex  court  has  not  disapproved the said decision
\n        which was held to be one rendered  per  incuriam  by  the
\n        Division Bench of this Court in Monu Surendran.@@
\n                                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
        \t19.\tGoing  by  the  observations  in Ranadhir@@
\n                                              AAAAAAAA
\n        Basu and Surindra Mohan particularly Ranadhir  Basu,  the@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA              AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        apex  court  had  pointedly considered the question as to
\n        whether the expression “examination” in Sec.    306(4)(a)
\n        would  include  cross-examination  and  held that at that
\n        stage  the  accused  has   no   right   to   appear   and
\n        cross-examine  the  approver  and  the legal position was
\n        treated akin to an inquiry under Sec.  202  Cr.P.C.    In
\n        the  case  of  a witness examined during an inquiry under
\n        Sec.  202 Cr.P.C., the question  pointedly  arose  before
\n        the Supreme Court as to whether his statement recorded by
\n        the magistrate and favourable to the prosecution would be
\n        admissible under  Sec.    33  of the Evidence Act if such
\n        witness had turned hostile to the prosecution during  the
\n        subsequent trial.   After holding that the accused had no
\n        right and  opportunity  to  cross-examine  a  prosecution
\n        witness  examined during the course of inquiry under Sec.
\n        202 Cr.P.C.  the apex court held as follows in  Paragraph\n<\/p>\n
        10.
\n         “Thus,  we  have no difficulty in holding that as@@
\n        i
\n                during the course of inquiry under Sec.   202  of
\n                the  Code  an  accused  has  no  right  much less
\n                opportunity  to   cross-examine   a   prosecution
\n                witness,  statement  of  such  a witness recorded
\n                during  the  course  of  the   inquiry   is   not
\n                admissible in  evidence under Sec.  33 of the Act
\n                and, consequently, the same cannot form the basis
\n                of conviction of an accused”.\n<\/p>\n
        \t20.\tIn the light of the decisions of the apex
\n        court adverted to above, we are of  the  considered  view
\n        that  Monu  Surendran  has not been correctly decided and@@
\n              AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        with due respect we overrule the same and  hold  that  In@@
\n                                                               AA
\n        re.   Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  (Supra)  and Kurian v.@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        State of Kerala were correctly  decided.    There  is  no@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        dispute    that    those   appellants\/accused   who   had
\n        cross-examined the approver during his examination  under
\n        Section 306(4)(a)  Cr.P.C.  was pursuant to the direction
\n        given  to  the  Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   in   Monu@@
\n                                                             AAAA
\n        Surendran’s  case  wherein  it was the State which sought@@
\n        AAAAAAAAAAA
\n        for  the  direction  to  examine  the   approver   giving
\n        opportunity to  the  accused to cross-examine him.  Thus,
\n        cross-examination   was   virtually   thrust   upon   the
\n        appellants\/accused without  their asking for it.  In such
\n        situation, the cross-examination conducted by them cannot
\n        be said to be as of right.\n<\/p>\n
        \t21.\tWe accordingly answer this  reference  as
\n        follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         Since  the  appellants\/accused  had  no  right to@@
\n        i
\n                cross-examine the approver while he was  examined
\n                before   the   Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  under
\n                Section 306(4)(a) Cr.P.C., even if  any  of  them
\n                had  an opportunity to cross-examine the approver
\n                at that stage,  the  statement  of  the  approver
\n                examined under Sec.    306 (4)(a) Cr.P.C.  is not
\n                relevant or admissible under  Sec.    33  of  the
\n                Evidence Act during the subsequent trial in which
\n                the approver was not available for examination by
\n                reason of his death in the meanwhile.
\n.PA\n<\/p>\n
        \t22.\tWe, however, make it clear that  we  have
\n        not examined  the  admissibility under Sec.  32(3) of the
\n        Evidence Act of the aforesaid statement of the  approver.
\n        That  is  a  matter  to  be considered by the appropriate
\n        Bench which finally hears these appeals.    The  Registry
\n        shall   take   steps  to  post  the  appeals  before  the
\n        appropriate Court as per the roster for disposal  of  the
\n        same on merits.\n<\/p>\n
.JN<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\t    V.RAMKUMAR,
\n        \t\t\t\t      (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\t K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
\n        \t\t\t\t      (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\t     M.N.KRISHNAN
\n        \t\t\t\t\t(JUDGE)<\/p>\n
.JY
\n        \t\t\t\t\t(Continued…)
\n.JY
\n.PA
\n.JN<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\t& V.  RAMKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\t\t&
\n        \t\t\t\tM.N.KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\tORDER<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\tCrl.Appeal Nos.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t        534\/92, 537\/92,
\n        \t\t\t\t597\/92,   686\/92, 697\/92,
\n        \t\t\t\t9\/1993, 22\/93, 100\/93
\n         \t114\/93, 118\/93, 119\/93,@@
\n        j
\n        \t\t\t\t125\/1993, 126\/93 &
\n        \t\t\t\t136\/1993<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\tDATED:\n<\/p>\n
.JY<\/p>\n
.JY<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 534 of 1992 1. L.S.ASOKAN … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nL.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-01T15:23:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-01T15:23:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":5018,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\",\"name\":\"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-01T15:23:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-01T15:23:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-01T15:23:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005"},"wordCount":5018,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005","name":"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-01T15:23:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-s-asokan-vs-state-on-3-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L.S.Asokan vs State on 3 August, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132035","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132035"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132035\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}