P. Manjunatha Vs. State of Kerala rep. by Pulic Prosecutor and Others

P. Manjunatha vs State of Kerala rep. by Pulic Prosecutor and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 30, 2015

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1181597

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/1181597
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: B. Kemal Pasha
Decided On: Nov 30, 2015
Case Number: Crl. MC. No. 7410 of 2015
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Manjunatha

Respondent

State of Kerala rep. by Pulic Prosecutor and Others

Excerpt

.....true that the court below has permitted the petitioner to engage an advocate of his choice for assisting the prosecution under the proviso to section 24(8) cr.p.c. as to the manner in which such a pleader, who is engaged on the application of the defacto complainant should act, are contained in section 301(2) cr.p.c. if any such private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any court, the public prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the public prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. the provision is very clear that apart from submitting a written argument, after the evidence is closed in the case, that too with the permission of the court, the pleader so instructed, can only act under the directions of the public prosecutor. that means, such a pleader or a party, cannot file any application, other than the written arguments in the matter. matters being so, the crl.m.p filed before the court below is not maintainable and therefore, the dismissal of the said crl.m.p. by the court below cannot be found fault with. 3. it is high time to think that some more provisions are to be added to the code of criminal procedure in such matters, especially when a private party aggrieved can file an appeal against acquittal. in such an appeal, of course, the shortcomings of the prosecution, inefficiency of the prosecution, as well as the request of this kind forwarded by the aggrieved person, are valid grounds. in such case, some more powers have to be given to the pleaders being appointed by the parties in the matter under the proviso to section 24(8) cr.p.c. as things stand now, when any other interference or intervention is barred by the provisions contained under section 301(2) cr.p.c., the present, crl.m.c. is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and i do so. in the result,.....

Full Judgment

1. PW1, who is the son of the deceased in S.C.No.173/2009 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod, filed Crl.M.P.No.3062/2015 before the court below under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the production of some documents and the recalling of some witnesses for examination. Through Annexure-II order, the court below has dismissed Annexure-I Crl.M.P.

2. It is true that the court below has permitted the petitioner to engage an Advocate of his choice for assisting the prosecution under the proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. As to the manner in which such a pleader, who is engaged on the application of the defacto complainant should act, are contained in Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. If any such private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. The provision is very clear that apart from submitting a written argument, after the evidence is closed in the case, that too with the permission of the Court, the pleader so instructed, can only act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. That means, such a pleader or a party, cannot file any application, other than the written arguments in the matter. Matters being so, the Crl.M.P filed before the court below is not maintainable and therefore, the dismissal of the said Crl.M.P. by the court below cannot be found fault with.

3. It is high time to think that some more provisions are to be added to the Code of Criminal Procedure in such matters, especially when a private party aggrieved can file an appeal against acquittal. In such an appeal, of course, the shortcomings of the prosecution, inefficiency of the prosecution, as well as the request of this kind forwarded by the aggrieved person, are valid grounds. In such case, some more powers have to be given to the pleaders being appointed by the parties in the matter under the proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. As things stand now, when any other interference or intervention is barred by the provisions contained under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C., the present, Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2015 Same Parties P. Manjunatha vs State of Kerala rep. by Pulic Prosecutor and... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge B. Kemal Pasha