BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Suo Motu Proceedings On The Basis Of A Communication Received From Sessions Judge – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
Is it mandatory to examine an accused who was tendered pardon under section 306(4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? What is the effect of failure to examine an approver prior to the committal in a sessions case? These are the questions which require an answer in this suo motu revision petition. Incidentally, from the contentions advanced by one of the learned counsel, the question of whether the order of committal being an interlocutory order can be interfered with under the suo motu revisional power of the High Court also arises for consideration.
2. The aforementioned questions arise in five cases under S.C. No.426/2011, S.C. No.619/2011, S.C. No.67/2012, S.C. No.665/2012 and S.C. No.413/2016 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad.
3. Prosecution alleged that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched between accused 1 to 11, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked one Tilakan on 26.07.2005, who succumbed to the injuries. Prosecution further alleged that the first accused and second accused had nurtured a business rivalry and conspired with and hired the other accused to execute their plan. The deceased died on 31.07.2005 while undergoin
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.