IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4204 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.250/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- G.HEMA, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.GOMATHY AMMA, AMBADY, POZHIKKARA P.O. PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, THAKALOTTU VEEDU, POZHIKKARA CHERRY, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4204 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 ORDER The grievance raised by the petitioner is about the irregularity of the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. Records show that cognizance was taken as early as in 1999. Overlooking the fact that the offence alleged is a warrant offence and not a summons offence, the learned Magistrate recorded the plea of the accused by reading over the particulars of offence to him on 19.06.08. Later, on realising that the procedure adopted is incorrect, the learned Magistrate reckoned such proceeding as nonest and proceeded to conduct an enquiry under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the irregularity of procedure followed even thereafter. According to the petitioner, charges have already been framed on 14.03.08. But the learned Magistrate has again posted the case to 27.06.08 for framing charges. 2. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a report of the learned Magistrate was called Crl.M.C. No.4204 of 2008 2 for. The learned Magistrate was requested to submit a report, in which he should throw light on the procedure adopted. 3. The report of the learned Magistrate is now received. The learned Magistrate reports that actually the case was posted to 27.06.08 for questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and not for framing charges. It was an erroneous entry which had crept into the order sheet that created the confusion. The case stood posted not for framing charges, but only for recording the 313 statement. As a matter of fact the accused was questioned on 17.09.08 and the matter now stands posted for defence evidence, it was reported. 4. I am satisfied that there is no irregularity in the procedure and that accepting the report of the learned Magistrate, this Crl.M.C can and need only be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to recall a witness. He can file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate on such application. 5. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.4204 of 2008 3 Crl.M.C. No.4204 of 2008 4 R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4204 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is about the irregularity of procedure followed by the learned Magistrate in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken as early as in 1999. It appears that overlooking the fact that it is a warrant case and not a summons case, particulars of offence were read over prior to 08.06.07 (on 09.05.2001). When that error was realised, the learned Judge reversed that order and directed that 244 enquiry shall be conducted. According to the petitioner even thereafter proper procedure has not been followed. 2. Call for a report from the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall explain whether a proper 244 enquiry has been conducted. Which were the witnesses examined ? Was the accused given opportunities to cross examine the witnesses ? If not why was such opportunities not granted ? The learned Magistrate shall also explain the procedure followed thereafter - Crl.M.C. No.4204 of 2008 5 as to : i) when the charge was framed ? ii) Were charges framed on 14.03.2008 ? iii) If charges have been framed on 14.03.08, why is it that the case is seen posted for framing charge again on 19.06.08 and 27.06.08 ? iv) At what stage is the proceedings now ? 3. The learned Magistrate shall consider the questions afresh and issue appropriate directions in the matter. Such directions issued shall also be forwarded to this Court by the next date of posting. 4. Call on 01.12.2008. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-