SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 102

PADMANABHAN
STATE – Appellant
Versus
GOPAKUMAR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This unfortunate and protracted case presents some novel positions. A senior I. A. S. Officer met with an accident on 27-6-1981 involving two automobiles and serious injuries to him. C. C. No.134 of 1982 was charge-sheeted before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Trivandrum against two persons for offences punishable under S.279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and S.89(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the case was pending trial, the Sub Inspector of Police, City Traffic (C.W.15) submitted a report purporting to be under S.258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Court to stop further proceedings since "In the peculiar circumstances of the case it is revealed that a re-investigation in the above is absolutely essential in the interest of justice". Though in bis order the Magistrate said "the report filed by the S.1 does not disclose any valid reason for conducting a re-investigation" and "The A.P.P. has not filed any report in this court showing the reason for conducting a re-investigation", be allowed the prayer stating "But since the counsel appearing for both the accused submitted that they are not opposing the report". He also












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top