Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Murukan M. S/o Muthayya Konar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to common order regarding trial proceedings. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's claims of repentance and evidence of phone call. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's dismissal of petitions based on evidentiary standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. criteria for issuing summons to defense witnesses. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. While so, the petitioner/accused filed two petitions under Section 266 of the BNSS. The averments in the first petition is that, after scheduling the case for trial, as on 03.05.2025, the wife of PW11 had telephonic discussion with the accused and during the discussion, she stated that her husband committed wrong to him and she had repentance on the same. According to the petitioner, the telephone discussion in between the petitioner and the wife of PW11 is from his mobile phone No.9526531245 and the wife of PW11 talked to him from her mobile phone No.8086578714. According to the petitioner, he had produced CDR pertaining to Vodafone Idea company in this regard and also produced the telephone discussion recorded in pendrive before the court. Therefore,
The court emphasized that witness summons must demonstrate relevance to the case, and applications should not be intended for vexation or delay, affirming the dismissal of petitions lacking merit.
The court affirmed that the power to summon witnesses must be exercised judiciously to prevent unnecessary delays in trials, emphasizing the importance of timely evidence presentation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful consideration of the limitations and conditions for summoning documents and recalling witnesses under the relevant sections of the Crim....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving demand and establishing the essential ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court emphasized the necessity of recalling witnesses to ensure a fair trial and prevent failure of justice.
The necessity of documents for trial must be clearly stated in the application; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Sections 233(3) and 91 of Cr.P.C.
The discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence, such as the CDR, under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection t....
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
The court affirmed that the right to summon documents arises at the defense stage but stressed that delays in such requests can undermine trial integrity and prolong proceedings unnecessarily.
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
