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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Mohammed Nazer M.P, S/o Attakoya – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Lakshadweep – Respondent
OP(Crl.) No. 608, 609 of 2022
Decided on : 23-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : LAL K.JOSEPH, KOYA ARAFA MIRAGE, SURESH SUKUMAR, ANZIL SALIM, AKASH GEORGE
For the Respondent: K.CHERIYAKOYA

Point of Law: Section 276 of Code deals with record in trial before Court of Sessions.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 188, 186, 353, 149 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311, 278, 275, 276, 340, 195 (1) - Allegation of Forgery - Dereliction of Duty - Forged Evidence - Allegation of forgery is alleged against Chief Judicial Magistrate - Chief Judicial Magistrate forged evidence of an Investigating officer and convicted accused - If there is any dereliction of duty, constitutional courts should step in to strengthen trust of people in judiciary - Para 24.

Finding of the Court :

Court is of opinion that additional 3rd respondent forged evidence of PW7 and he is liable to be proceeded as per Sec.340 of Cr.P.C – Court is of opinion that it is expedient in interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec.195 Cr.P.C because additional 3rd respondent appears to have been committed offence – Court is of opinion that this is a fit case in which this Court has to direct Administrator to place 3rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry - It is true that now additional 3rd respondent is working as Secretary, District Legal Service Authority - But even then, since he is in service, there are chances to influence witness and even intrude into documents by additional 3rd respondent - If there is any dereliction of duty, constitutional courts should step in to strengthen trust of people in judiciary - Magistrate, Judges and other presiding officers are not above law and if they commit any dereliction of duty, they have to face consequences - This should be a lesson to all.

Result: Petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

This is a strange case in which serious allegation of forgery is alleged against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini Island. It is alleged that some of the accused in a criminal case pending in that court filed a complaint before the administrative side of this Court against the conduct of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, who is also acting as the Sub Judge, in the trial of their civil case. Aggrieved by the same, the Chief Judicial Magistrate forged the evidence of an Investigating officer and convicted the accused in the absence of the accused and issued warrant to them is the allegation. The learned Magistrate sentenced the accused person to undergo a sentence of 4½ years under different sections of Indian Penal Code and directed them to serve the sentence separately with a malafide intention to put the accused behind bars is the further allegation.

2. If the allegation against the Chief Judicial Magistrate is true, it is unfortunate and unheard of. The immense faith of the citizens of this country in the Indian Judiciary itself is the backbone of our judicial system. So, the judicial officers should be above board. But of course, there may be criticism against judicial officers and that is only because of the immense faith of the people in this system. Fair criticisms will undoubtedly improve the system. The judicial officers however, need not respond to those criticisms, but they should concentrate on their commitment to the system and prove their integrity and fair play while decision making. The pen of a judicial officer is powerful, but it should be used with great caution, of course without fear and favour. The famous Roman statesman, lawyer, scholar, and philosopher, Marcus Tullius observed that "The magistrates are the ministers for the laws, the judges their interpreters, the rest of us are servants of the law, ………………..". If the allegation raised by the petitioners/accused against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini is true, the said Magistrate is not fit to continue in any position, for a second.

3. The short facts of the case are like this: Petitioners in OP(Crl.) No.608/2022 are the accused Nos.1 to 15 in C.C.No.24/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 188, 186 and 353 r/w Section 149 IPC.

4. The prosecution allegation is that a, a contractor by the name V.K.Dawood who was engaged in plucking coconut from the Government land requested the Deputy Collector/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Agatti for seeking police assistance for plucking coconut on the southern side of Panchayath stage in Ward No.7 Agatti Island. The Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Agatti issued an order directing the Amin, Agatti and Deputy Surveyor, Agatti to supervise the aforesaid work of plucking the coconut with police assistance. It is further alleged that when the Amin, Deputy Surveyor and the contractor was supervising the plucking of coconut, a mob of around 40 persons led by the 1st and 2nd accused formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention of rioting, obstructed the Amin, Surveyor, contractor and the coconut climbers. It is also alleged that, they forcefully took the coconuts plucked and obstructed their duty. Hence crime No.6/2015 of Agatti Police Station was registered which was investigated and final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as C.C.No.24/2016. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate on summons and they were enlarged on bail.

5. The trial in this case started and PW1 to PW5 were examined on 07.03.2019. PW6 was examined on 08.03.2019. On 28.02.2020, CW19, the Investigating officer mounted the box as PW7. But he was not ready to depose b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top