Kerala High Court
A.V.Gireesh vs State Of Kerala on 22 June, 2011
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1775 of 2011()
1. A.V.GIREESH,AGED 28 YEARS),S/O.DASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/06/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1775 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.Nos.184 of 2010 and 415 of 2011, both initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod at Kanhangad under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Annexures-A1 and A2, orders issued under Section 111 of the Code are under challenge. Learned counsel has contended that Annexures-A1 and A2, orders do not contain particulars of information said to be received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and non-application of the mind on the part of Sub Divisional Magistrate is writ large as he has issued two orders in respect of the same matter. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.
2. So far as the second argument is concerned, having heard both sides I am inclined to think that the contention should survive. For, it is in respect of the same matter that Annexures-A1 and A2, orders are passed on May 11, 2011 and May 10, 2011, respectively. Hence, Annexure-A2, order dated May 10, 2011 cannot stand and is liable to be quashed.
3. What remained is Annexure-A1, order dated May 11, 2011. Contention is that particulars of information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate are not given in the said order. I am however, unable to accept that contention. Details of the cases in which petitioner is said to be involved are Crl.MC No.1775/2011 2 given in Annexure-A1, order. Information which the Sub Divisional Magistrate is said to have received which according to the Sub Divisional Magistrate required action under Section 107 of the Code is also given in Annexure-A1 though, not in such details as learned counsel would expect it to be. What is required is to give the substance of the information which Annexure-A1 satisfies. I must also bear in mind that Annexure-A1 is only a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he shall not execute bond as stated therein. Section 116(3) of the Code requires that the Sub Divisional Magistrate could direct petitioner to execute the bond only after commencement of enquiry. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Annexure-A1, order.
Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed to the extent that Annexure-A2, order dated May 10, 2011 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod at Kanhangad is set aside. But, I make it clear that Annexure-A1, order dated May 11, 2011 would stand. It is open to the petitioner to show cause as directed in Annexure-A1, order.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks