IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1425 of 2011() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED20/04/2011 IN LP 7/2011 IN CC.490/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, RANNI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ----------------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH @ BINOY, S/O.PAPPCHAN @ THOMAS JOSEPH, MADATHIKKUNNEL, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1425 of 2011() ANNEXURE ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 490/05(NOW LP NO.7/11 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M. NO-I, RANNI) ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE CMP NO. 2019/11 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M. NO-I, RANNI ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO. 2019/11 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M. NO-I, RANNI // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE smt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1425 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.490 of 2005 and L.P.No.7 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ranni for offences punishable under Sec.428 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Allegation is that petitioner committed mischief by causing the death of two pigs by poisoning and thereby caused loss of `14,000/- to the de facto complainant. Petitioner who is abroad wants to appear through counsel and plead guilty. 2. True that the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be awarded for the offence punishable under Sec.428 of the IPC is two years and hence it is within the power of learned Magistrate to try the case following the procedure for summary trial. But the de facto complainant is said to have suffered loss of `14,000/- . May be, learned Crl.M.C. No.1425 of 2011 -: 2 :- Magistrate might consider whether it necessary to award compensation to the de facto complainant for which a sentence of imprisonment (atleast till rising of the court) is mandatory. For awarding sentence of imprisonment presence of petitioner in court is required. In the circumstances request of petitioner to allow him to appear through counsel and plead guilty cannot be allowed. But it is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of petitioner settling the case with the de facto complainant out of court and requesting this Court to quash proceeding on the strength of that settlement. With the above observation, this Crl.M.C. is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt