Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.
Manaf S/o. Muhammad - Appellant
Vs.
The Sub Inspector Of Police Kambalakkad Police Station, Wayanad District - Respondent
Crl.M.C. Nos.2490 of 2014 & 4291 of 2017
Decided On : 26-07-2024
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PROSECUTION AND TRIAL - Sections 258, 319 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the powers under Sections 258 and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), emphasizing that once a Magistrate drops proceedings under Section 258, they cannot subsequently invoke Section 319 on the same day. The court highlighted that Section 319 allows for the addition of accused only when there are existing accused in the case. The court concluded that the orders made under Sections 258 and 319 on the same day were legally infirm, leading to the setting aside of the orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders of the Sessions Judge and the Magistrate, which allowed the addition of new accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after dropping the original accused under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The defacto complainant sought further investigation into the case, alleging that the police had omitted certain individuals from the charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate acted beyond their authority by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. after dropping the case against all original accused under Section 258 Cr.P.C. on the same day. The court ruled that the orders under Sections 258 and 319 were unsustainable due to the legal principle that Section 319 can only be invoked when there are existing accused.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate had the authority to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. after dropping the case against all accused under Section 258 Cr.P.C. on the same day.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once proceedings are dropped under Section 258 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is functus officio to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day, as it would amount to a review of the earlier order. The court referenced a constitutional bench ruling that clarified the timing of invoking Section 319 in relation to the conclusion of trials.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders under Sections 258 and 319 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition for further investigation as infructuous.
ORDER :
These two criminal miscellaneous cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.
2. First, I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. No.4291/2017. Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2017 in Crl.R.P. No.17/2016 whereby the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, Wayanad confirmed the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady in Crl.M.P. No.1701/2016 in C.C. No.256/2009. It is a case charge sheeted by the Police against six persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Annexure-A is the FIR and Annexure-B is the FI Statement in the above case. As per the final report filed based on Annexures A and B FIR and FI Statement, K.I.Moidheen, Abdul Latheef, P.U. Sulaiman, K.A.Nazar, Rameesh E.A. and Rayinkutty were arraigned as accused. The petitioners were not accused originally. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and has taken on file the case as C.C.No.256/2009. Thereafter the trial in the case started and the defacto complainant was examined as PW1 on 20.01.2016. Annexure-C is the deposition of PW1. Pursuant to Annexure-C, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed Annexure-D petition to add the petitioners also as accused stating that the investigating agency omitted their name. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition as per the order dated 25.10.2016 as evident by Annexure-E. Moreover, the Court dropped the proceedings against the six persons who were charged by the Police originally invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Annexure-F is that order. Aggrieved by the Annexure-E order, the petitioners who were implicated as accused, filed a revision before the Session Judge, Kalpetta. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Annexure-G is the order. Aggrieved by Annexures E and G orders, this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.
3. Crl.M.C. No.2490/2014 is filed by the defacto complainant in C.C. No.256/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady. The above criminal miscellaneous case is filed with following prayers:
(2) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time. (SIC)
4. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant in the above case, the 1st respondent Police, in order to save the original accused, implicated respondents 4 to 9. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant, a further investigation is necessary in the case. Hence this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Crl.M.C.No. 4291/2017 is filed against Annexures-E and G orders. It is a settled position that, the jurisdiction of this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by a revisional court is very limited. Unless there is any illegality or irregularity that goes to the root of the case, this Court need not interfere with the orders passed by the revisional court invoking the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. But a legal question is raised in this case. Annexure-E is an order passed by the learned Magistrate in an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. Annexure-D is the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The prayer in Annexure-D is that the respondents (the petitioners herein) mentioned in that petition are to be tried along with the existing accused in that case invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As mentioned earlier, the above application is allowed by the learned Magistrate as evident by Annexure-E
AI
The court established that a Magistrate cannot invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. after dropping all accused under Section 258 Cr.P.C. on the same day, as it violates the procedural integrity of the Criminal....
A Magistrate cannot invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day after dropping prosecution under Section 258, rendering such orders unsustainable.
The discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the requirement for strong and cogent evidence before exercising it.
It is a settled principle of law that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly, because it is an extraordinary power given to court and cannot be exercised in a routine m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in altering or adding charges and committing the case to the Court of Session, as well as the limitations o....
Section 319 allows rejoining discharged accused based on evidence in ongoing trial; defining the distinction between inquiry and trial stages.
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
