SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39912

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
BINU T @ BONOCHAN – Appellant
Versus
AMBILY – Respondent


O R D E R

The petitioner herein stood trial in CC No. 461/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Peermade for offences punishable under sections 448 & 323 IPC, under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

2. It seems that, after the completion of trial and when the case was posted on 30/6/2018 for pronouncing the judgment, the accused was remained absent. Hence, the court proceeded to pronounce the judgment finding him guilty of offence punishable under sections 448 and 323 IPC. He was convicted. Since the petitioner was not available , bail bond was canceled and non bailable warranted was issued. The petitioner has approached this court contending that there was communication gap between the lawyer and the petitioner, which disabled him from appearing before this court. It is also stated that he has been consecutively appearing on previous posting dates through the counsel. The petitioner apprehends that, if he appears on the next posting date, he is likely to be remanded and the sentence be pronounced only on a later stage.

3. Having considered the above facts, I am inclined to direct the petitioner herein to appear before the court below within ten days from today and file applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top