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 :
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’ hereinafter) by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.4/2019 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, challenging Annexure A3 common order in C.M.P.Nos.401/2025 and402/2025, dated 19.6.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. This is a case where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) by the accused/petitioner herein. The allegation is that, at about 16.10 hrs. on 29.7.2016, the accused, who had been working as Village Assistant at Thennala Village Office, Malappur
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.
Mere desire to recall a witness after lapse of time without establishing necessity does not justify such recall.
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.
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
