Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 27, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1142671

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1142671
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Ubaid
Decided On: May 27, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....nil. / true copy / p.s. to judge pj p.ubaid, j.--------------------------------------- crl.r.p no.945 of 2014 --------------------------------------- dated this the 27th day of may, 2014 order the revision petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and the injured in c.c.no.544/2007 of the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, attingal. on trial, the trial court acquitted the accused by judgment dated 29.9.2011. against the acquittal the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the court of session, thiruvananthapuram as crl.a no.146/2012, in exercise of his right as victim of offence. as the filing of appeal was delayed for about 500 days, he filed crl.m.p no.587/2012 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. on 17.11.2012 the learned additional sessions judge, thiruvananthapuram dismissed crl.m.p no.587/2012 for default, and consequently dismissed the criminal appeal as time barred. the said order is under challenge in this revision.2. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the counsel for the appellant in the appellate court could not appear on the date of posting only because he crl.r.p no.945 of 2014 2 was involved in a motor accident, and sustained grievous injuries. this submission regarding the inability of the counsel to appear in court is accepted by this court, and i find that the application to condone delay will have to be decided on merits, for which an opportunity can be granted to the revision petitioner. in the nature of disposal, i feel it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this proceedings. for taking a just decision in the application to condone delay, notice to the respondents can be issued from the appellate court. for the said purpose proceedings in this revision need not be delayed. there is reason to believe that the revision petitioner is in fact aggrieved by the order of acquittal. it is submitted that he had sustained some injuries in the incident of assault, and.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY,THE27H DAY OF MAY20146TH JYAISHTA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 945 of 2014 -------------------------------------- CC5442007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,ATTINGAL ------------- REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CW1:: ---------------------------------------------------------- VINOD KUMAR, S/O SWAMINATHAN, UTHRALAYAM VEEDU, NEAR THONNAL DEVI TGEMPLE, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND A1 TYO A4: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR, SANKARA MANGALAM VEEDU, VALIYVEETTU MURI, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE:695 316.

3. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, S/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR, SANKARA MANGALAM VEEDU, VALIYVEETTU MURI, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE:695 316.

4. CHANDRACHOODAN, S/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR, SANKARA MANGALAM VEEDU, VALIYVEETTU MURI, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE:695 316.

5. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O GANGADHARAN, MANAKATTIL VEEDU, VALIYAVEETTU MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE:695 316. R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LILLY LESLIE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2705-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 945 of 2014 -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ---------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED299/2011 IN CC.NO.544/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL1T CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------ NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ P.UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.945 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2014 ORDER

The revision petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and the injured in C.C.No.544/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. On trial, the trial court acquitted the accused by judgment dated 29.9.2011. Against the acquittal the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl.A No.146/2012, in exercise of his right as victim of offence. As the filing of appeal was delayed for about 500 days, he filed Crl.M.P No.587/2012 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On 17.11.2012 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dismissed Crl.M.P No.587/2012 for default, and consequently dismissed the Criminal Appeal as time barred. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the counsel for the appellant in the appellate court could not appear on the date of posting only because he Crl.R.P No.945 of 2014 2 was involved in a motor accident, and sustained grievous injuries. This submission regarding the inability of the counsel to appear in court is accepted by this Court, and I find that the application to condone delay will have to be decided on merits, for which an opportunity can be granted to the revision petitioner. In the nature of disposal, I feel it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this proceedings. For taking a just decision in the application to condone delay, notice to the respondents can be issued from the appellate court. For the said purpose proceedings in this revision need not be delayed. There is reason to believe that the revision petitioner is in fact aggrieved by the order of acquittal. It is submitted that he had sustained some injuries in the incident of assault, and for the redressal of his grievance as victim of offence he wants to prosecute the appeal. I feel it just and appropriate to allow him to prosecute the matter in the appellate court. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the court below dated 17.11.2012 dismissing Crl.M.P No.587/2012 and Crl.A No.146/2012 are hereby set aside and the matter is ordered to be restored to files in the Court of Session. The Sessions Court is directed to decide Crl.R.P No.945 of 2014 3 the application for condonation of delay on merits, after granting an opportunity to the revision petitioner to substantiate his grounds. Notice to the respondents shall be issued in the proceedings from the trial court. The revision petitioner will appear in the trial court on 1.7.2014. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Vinod Kumar vs State of Kerala Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Ubaid