Back
A.HARIPRASAD
R. Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala represented by The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. Accused in Crime No.293 of 2012 of Chottanikkara Police Station registered under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short, "the PDPP Act") seeks quashment of the charge under Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act in Annexure-A4 final report.
3. Heard Shri P.N. Sukumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Justin Jacob, learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The allegations, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner on 15.04.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. drove a mini lorry through Kochi-Madhura National High Way in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the rash driving, the vehicle went off the road and hit on an electric post, made of teak wood and carrying 11 KV electric line, and thereby caused damage to a tune of ?35,000/-to the Kerala State Electricity Board. Annexure-A1 is the first information report. After investigation, Police filed Annexure-A4 final report. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry took cognizance of the case and it is pending in C.C.No.876 of 2013.
5.
None. The provided case law
Followed / Affirmed:
None explicitly indicated. The case description suggests it is a standalone decision regarding the acts of appellants and their relation to specific offences, but there is no mention of subsequent affirmation or adoption by higher courts.
Distinguished / Cited:
No information provided that indicates this case has been distinguished from other cases or cited as a precedent.
Criticized / Questioned:
The case description does not contain language indicating criticism or questioning by later courts.
Reiterated / Confirmed:
No evidence that this case has been reaffirmed or confirmed in subsequent rulings.
Reversed / Overruled:
There is no indication that this case has been overruled or reversed in subsequent case law.
Abrogated:
No indication that the case has been abrogated or explicitly invalidated.
In summary, based solely on the information provided, the case appears to be an independent decision without evidence of subsequent judicial treatment that overrules, reverses, or criticizes it.
None. The treatment of the case law provided is explicit enough to determine that it has not been overruled, reversed, or otherwise negatively treated. The absence of treatment indicators suggests that the case's status remains as initially decided, or at least that there is no available information indicating a change.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
