Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Akheesh S. Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2011

Author: Thomas P.Joseph

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1295 of 2011()


1. AKHEESH S. KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :26/05/2011

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
           ====================================
                    Crl. M.C. No.1295 of 2011
           ====================================
               Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011


                              O R D E R

This petition is filed in challenge of Annexure-I, order dated March 22, 2011 purporting to be under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") directing petitioner to appear and execute the bond or show cause why the said order shall not be executed. According to the petitioner, Annexure-I, order suffers from illegality in that it does not disclose contents of reports based on which the said order is passed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Henry Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala (2009 [4] KLT 495). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.

2. In paragraph 7 of the decision referred supra it is stated that the order (issued under Sec.111 of the Code) does not disclose the contents of the report based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate has expressed satisfaction to invoke power under Sec.107 of the Code requiring petitioner to appear and show cause why he shall not execute the bond. The order was set aside for that reason. It is seen from Annexure-I, order CRL.M.C. No.1295 of 2011 -: 2 :- that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not disclosed details of contents of report based on which the order is passed. Hence the order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. However it is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Sub Divisional Magistrate passing fresh order disclosing the contents of the report based on which he proposes to pass orders against the petitioner.

With the observation made above this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-I, order dated March 22, 2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv