Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

ivan Vs. State of Kerala

ivan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2012
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1009495

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ivan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the additional sessions judge, irinjalakuda. true copy pa to judge. acd s. siri jagan, j.------------------------------------------- crl.r.p. no.2506 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------- dated this the 20th day of december, 2012 order the petitioners are the accused in sessions case no.575/2011 before the additional sessions judge, irinjalakuda. the petitioners applied for a certified copy of the crime card in crime no.173/97. when the petition came up for hearing, the additional public prosecutor objected the same. the sessions judge dismissed the application by the following order: "petition by counsel for accused to issue direction to the s.i. of police, koratty to issue certified copy of crime card in crime no.173/97. additional public prosecutor objected. heard. since the petitioner has not made out reasons for not producing certified copy it is not necessary to issue such a direction. the reply revealed by the accused itself explain the case. in the result, petition is dismissed." going by the same, i am unable to understand what the sessions judge meant by saying that 'since the petitioner has not made out reasons for not producing certified copy it is not necessary to issue such a direction.' in any event, when an accused in a criminal case requests for certified copy of a document for conducting his defence, there is no reason for the public prosecutor either to cr.r.p.no.2506/12 2 oppose the same or, for the sessions judge, to refuse to direct to issue the same. the accused should be given every document available, which is his right. even if the document sought for by the accused is the document in another case, there is no reason why the court should deny him the same, if the accused is of opinion that, that document would help him to defend his case appropriately. as such, i am satisfied that the sessions judge went wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. in the above circumstances, the order dated 11.12.2012 in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2506 of 2012 () ------------------------------- CMP.NO.55/2012 IN SC.575/2011 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- 1. IVAN S/O. ITTIRA, VADAKKAN HOUSE, MELOOR KALADY DESOM MELOOR VILLAGE.

2. ITTIRA, AGED 7 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, VADAKKAN HOUSE, MELOOR KALADY DESOM MELOOR VILLAGE.

3. PRINCY, AGED 6 YEARS W/O. ITTIRA, VADAKKAN HOUSE, MELOOR KALADY DESOM MELOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R BY ADV. SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2506 of 2012 () APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ANNEX.A: COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT IN CRIME NO.447 OF 200.OF KORATTY POLICE STATION. ANNEX.B: COPY OF THE POST MORTEM CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE DECEASED IN THE CASE. ANNEX.C: COPY OF THE CRIME CARD MARKED AS EXHIBIT D6 SUBJECT TO PROOF BEFORE THE COURT. ANNEX.D: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY IN THE APPLICATION PRFERRED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT REGADNG OBTAINMNET OF AUTHENTICATED COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS. ANNEX.E: COPY OF THE CMP NO.55 OF 201.PREFERRED BY THE REVISION PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT OF THE additional SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2506 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012 ORDER The petitioners are the accused in Sessions Case No.575/2011 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda. The petitioners applied for a certified copy of the crime card in Crime No.173/97. When the petition came up for hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor objected the same. The Sessions Judge dismissed the application by the following order: "Petition by counsel for accused to issue direction to the S.I. of Police, Koratty to issue certified copy of crime card in Crime No.173/97. Additional Public Prosecutor objected. Heard. Since the petitioner has not made out reasons for not producing certified copy it is not necessary to issue such a direction. The reply revealed by the accused itself explain the case. In the result, petition is dismissed." Going by the same, I am unable to understand what the Sessions Judge meant by saying that 'Since the petitioner has not made out reasons for not producing certified copy it is not necessary to issue such a direction.' In any event, when an accused in a criminal case requests for certified copy of a document for conducting his defence, there is no reason for the Public Prosecutor either to Cr.R.P.No.2506/12 2 oppose the same or, for the Sessions Judge, to refuse to direct to issue the same. The accused should be given every document available, which is his right. Even if the document sought for by the accused is the document in another case, there is no reason why the court should deny him the same, if the accused is of opinion that, that document would help him to defend his case appropriately. As such, I am satisfied that the Sessions Judge went wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the order dated 11.12.2012 in C.M.P.No.55/2012 in Sessions Case No.575/2011 is set aside. The Sessions Judge is directed to take all steps necessary to see that the accused are permitted to bring the crime card in Crime No.173/1997 on record, in Sessions Case No.575/2011, if necessary, by summoning the S.I. of Police, Koratty for the purpose. The Cr.R.P. is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd Cr.R.P.No.2506/12 3 Cr.R.P.No.2506/12 4

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial