Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Anil K Emmanuel S/O Emmanuel Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Public Prosecutor At The High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment discusses locus standi of a third party/stranger to challenge Ext.P17 order under Article 227 and cites Sheonandan Paswan and Abdul Wahab for the permissibility of such challenge (!) . - It analyzes the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC (entrustment and dishonest misappropriation) and whether they are prima facie attracted to justify framing a charge (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It explains the power under Section 239(1) BNSS (216 Cr.P.C) to alter or add to charges, including the conditions and the need to consider prejudice to the accused, with references to Karimullah Osan Khan and related jurisprudence (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges against trial court dismissal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's locus standi in court (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. trial court's obligation to assess evidence sufficiently (Para 19 , 21) |
| 4. findings related to charge under section 409 (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
1. This original petition has been filed by a stranger to the proceedings challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad (for short, 'the trial court') dismissing a petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 239 (1) of BNSS ( Section 216 of the Cr.P.C), seeking addition of a charge.
2. The 3rd and 4th respondents herein face trial before the trial court in C.C.No. 811 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193, 217 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The 3rd respondent/1st accused was working as property section clerk (Thondy section clerk) in the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period of the alleged incident. The prosecution case, in short, is that the 1st accused entered into criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused, who was the advocate for the accused in S.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
