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.

Rajan Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam and Others

Rajan vs The State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 19, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/947858

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
Case Number
CRMC.No. 161 of 2012
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajan

Respondent

The State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam and Others

Excerpt

in this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, the petitioner, who is the 4th accused in c.c. 19 of 2011 on the file of the judicial magistrate of the first class - 1, kottayam, seeks an order to quash annexurue-1 final report wherein the petitioner, along with others are accused for offence under section 294 (b) r/w section 34 of the indian penal code. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is even prepared to plead guilty. but the learned magistrate insisted for the personal attendance of the petitioner. the maximum sentence that can be awarded against the petitioner is only an imprisonment for three months and fine. that being the nature of offence, the case can even be tried by following the procedure under chapter xxi of the code of criminal procedure for summary trial. in the above circumstances, i find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be allowed to plead guilty in absence. at the same time, i find no merit in the submission that the trial court insisted for the personal attendance of the petitioner. in the event there is duly executed vakalath and the counsel representing the petitioner, it is not necessary to insist the attendance of the petitioner, that too in a case where the accused pleads guilty. however, there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that any vakalath was filed before the trial court or an application to plead guilty through lawyer was filed. therefore, i find that the petitioner has rushed to this court without seeking his remedy available before the trial court. in the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply before the trial court with due vakalath to permit him to plead guilty.

Full Judgment

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the 4th accused in C.C. 19 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - 1, Kottayam, seeks an order to quash Annexurue-1 final report wherein the petitioner, along with others are accused for offence under Section 294 (b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is even prepared to plead guilty. But the learned magistrate insisted for the personal attendance of the petitioner.

The maximum sentence that can be awarded against the petitioner is only an imprisonment for three months and fine. That being the nature of offence, the case can even be tried by following the procedure under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summary trial. In the above circumstances, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be allowed to plead guilty in absence. At the same time, I find no merit in the submission that the trial court insisted for the personal attendance of the petitioner. In the event there is duly executed vakalath and the counsel representing the petitioner, it is not necessary to insist the attendance of the petitioner, that too in a case where the accused pleads guilty. However, there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that any vakalath was filed before the trial court or an application to plead guilty through lawyer was filed. Therefore, I find that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without seeking his remedy available before the trial court.

In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply before the trial court with due vakalath to permit him to plead guilty.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial