Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SAJEEV K @ SAJEEV KARUN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2469 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.99/2011
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Revision Petition
Headnote
Issues: The court framed the issue as whether the dismissal of the revision petition lacked merit.
Ratio Decidendi: It was reasoned that a revisional court must examine the merits after admitting a petition.
Result: The court allowed the misc. case, restoring the revision petition for consideration.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN, SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN, SHRI.LIBIN VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and application for discharge. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observation on revisional duties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.99 of 2011 registered by the Town West Police Station, Thrissur.
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, he had filed an application for discharge before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur ('Trial Court, for short). However, by Annexure-1 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred Crl.R.P.No.30 of 2025 before the Court of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur ('Revisional Court', in short). The said revision petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent. However, by Annexure-3 order, the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition for default on the ground that there was no representation for the petitioner. Annexure-3 order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. As the Revisional Court had admitted the revision petition and stayed Annexure-1 order, it was bound to call for the records, examine the same and pass orders in the revision petition on its merits. Hence, Annexure-3 order may be set aside.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is trite law that once a revision petition is admitted, the Revisional Court is bound to call for the records, examine the same and decide the matter on its merits.
5. Admittedly, the revision petition has been dismissed for default on the ground that there was no representation for the petitioner. This, according to me, is erroneous, improper and illegal, and against the settled proposition of law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C., by setting aside Annexure-3 order and ordering the revision petition to be restored to file. The Revisional Court is directed to consider and dispose of Crl.R.P.No.30 of 2025, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, even if there is no representation for the petitioner.
