IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1069 of 2006-B ------------------------ SC.412/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CP.60/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEERUMEDU .................... APPELLANT: -------------- ARUL DAS, C.NO.8605, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. APPELLANT IN PRISON SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KUTHATTUKULAM (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/2/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== CRL.A. NO. 1069 OF 2006 ============================ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This appeal is preferred by the second accused in S.C.No.412/2001 which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha vide judgment dated 13-7-2004. Altogether, there were three accused persons in that Sessions case. Accused 1 and 2 were found guilty, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The third accused was acquitted . Accused 1 and 2 were also acquitted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code alleged against them. 2. This appeal is preferred by the second accused through prison authorities. The appeal was filed in 2006 along with an application to condone the delay of 631 days. The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted on 8/6/2006. Counsel Sri Bobby Mathew Koothattukulam was appointed as State Brief counsel. At long last, the appeal has come up for hearing and CRL.A. NO. 1069/2006 -2- disposal now. When we started the case, we noted that there were two convicted accused. We, therefore, wanted to ascertain whether the first accused has preferred any appeal and if so whether the same is pending. We were informed by the Registry that Crl.Appeal No.1272/2004 against the same judgment has already been disposed of. The said appeal was dismissed, it was reported. 3. We wanted the file to be seen and accordingly, the registry sent the file in Crl.A.No.1272/2004. To our shock, we find that the appellant herein Arul Das was the second appellant in that appeal preferred by both accused 1 and 2 through a counsel. That appeal was disposed of as early as on 20-11-2007. 4. We note that the Registry had not verified and had not seen that an appeal by the appellant was already admitted and pending when this appeal was admitted on 8-6-2006. That fact that this appeal by the appellant is pending was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges who disposed of Crl.A.No.1272/2004 as per judgment dated 20-11-2007. We are perturbed to note that such verification is not being done by the Registry. We deem it necessary that appropriate directions must be issued. Accordingly, we issue the following directions: CRL.A. NO. 1069/2006 -3- 1) In every cases when the appeal is received and numbered, the Registry shall verify whether other accused have also been convicted by the same impugned judgment. If such accused have been convicted, the registry shall verify and report whether such other accused have also been convicted. 2) The Registry shall verify whether any connected appeal is pending. If no such appeal has been filed till then by such convicted co-accused, the Registry shall monitor and find out whether any such appeal is subsequently filed and the said fact shall promptly be noted in both – that a connected appeal is pending. The appeals shall thereafter be clubbed together and posted together only. Before the appeals come up for hearing, the Registry shall verify whether more than one accused has been convicted and whether appeals of all the convicted persons had come before the court. If such appeals are pending, they shall be called together and jointly only. Similarly, if any of the co-accused has been acquitted, the Registry must also verify whether any connected appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal is pending. The registry must ensure that all the appeals against the common judgment are taken up together CRL.A. NO. 1069/2006 -4- and sent to court. 5. This appeal is found to be unnecessary and superfluous as challenge against the impugned verdict of guilt, conviction and sentence as against the second accused ,i.e. the appellant herein has already been disposed of vide judgment dated 20-11- 2007. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed as unnecessary in view of the earlier judgment dated 20-11-2007 in Crl.A.No.1272/2004. 7. The Registrar General shall report to the court the action taken to ensure that such instances are not repeated. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE CRL.A. NO. 1069/2006 -5- R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ========================== CRL.A. NO. 1069 OF 2006 JUDGMENT 16-2-2010 ===========================