IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1295 of 2011() ------------------------------------- MC.52/2011 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- AKHEESH S. KUMAR, T.C 39/1743 (1), ABHI AKHI VILLA, G.N.R.A -3A, MANACAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANOOR) 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1295 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed in challenge of Annexure-I, order dated March 22, 2011 purporting to be under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) directing petitioner to appear and execute the bond or show cause why the said order shall not be executed. According to the petitioner, Annexure-I, order suffers from illegality in that it does not disclose contents of reports based on which the said order is passed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Henry Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala (2009 [4] KLT 495). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. In paragraph 7 of the decision referred supra it is stated that the order (issued under Sec.111 of the Code) does not disclose the contents of the report based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate has expressed satisfaction to invoke power under Sec.107 of the Code requiring petitioner to appear and show cause why he shall not execute the bond. The order was set aside for that reason. It is seen from Annexure-I, order CRL.M.C. No.1295 of 2011 -: 2 :- that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not disclosed details of contents of report based on which the order is passed. Hence the order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. However it is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Sub Divisional Magistrate passing fresh order disclosing the contents of the report based on which he proposes to pass orders against the petitioner. With the observation made above this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-I, order dated March 22, 2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv