Jacob Mani VS State of Kerala

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

C. JAYACHANDRAN
Jacob Mani – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Jose Pallattukaran and Sidharth Murali, Advocates
For the Respondent No.2:R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam), Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: K. Rajesh Kannan,
Advocate
For the Respondent No.4:George Mathew Karamayil, G. Rajagopal (Kummanam) (K/3520/1999), Manuel Thomas (K/176/1978), Sunil Kumar A.G (K/000741/2003), Mathew K.T. (K/001047/2018) and George K.V. (K/000060/2019), Advocates

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, for short) by the appellant, who claims to be a victim, challenging the judgment of the Special Court, CBI, Thiruvanan-thapuram dated 24.01.2024 in C.C. No.20 of 2011.

2. When this appeal was moved, notice was issued to the respondents, who were the accused persons before the Special Court. On behalf of the second respondent/A1, Sri. R. Bindu Sasthamangalam appeared and opposed the very maintainability of this appeal, on the premise that the appellant cannot be considered as a victim, in terms of its definition under the BNSS. In the circumstances, the maintainability was heard as a preliminary question.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the second respondent/A1 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the 5th respondent/CBI.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of acquittal in the above referred Calendar Case is completely against the weight of evidence and law, which necessitates the appeal. Learned counsel would essentially point out that the appellant is a victim, who is entitled to file a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document