High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe Criminal Revision Cases are allowed; the di...
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1728/2018 & connected cases
Case / Petition Number:CRL.RC No. 1728 of 2018 (with connected cases: 1743/2018, 1757/2018, 1758/2018, 1770/2018, 1785/2018)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. G. Ajithkumar
- Judgment Date
- 2021-10-29
- Court Decision / Holding
- Criminal Revision Cases allowed; the orders of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused in the respective cases are set aside. The learned Magistrate will take back the cases on file and proceed with in accordance with law. The respective respondents/accused will appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III (Temporary), Kollam on 15.11.2021.
- Final Disposition
- The Criminal Revision Cases are allowed; the discharge orders under Section 258 Cr.P.C. are set aside; the cases are to be taken back on file and proceeded with in accordance with law; accused to appear on 15.11.2021.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Suo Motu Proceedings as per the resolution of the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 18-09-2017
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Kollam City Traffic (CR.784/2014)
- Sreejith S/o Ajayan
- Basheer S/o Yusaf Kunju
- Shibu S/o Sasankan
- Shyam S/o Fakheer Mohammed
- Samson S/o Albi
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. M C Ashi, Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
Common Order from the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, delivered by Justice P. G. Ajithkumar on 29 October 2021, addressing six suo motu Criminal Revision Cases arising from orders passed by Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III (Temporary Special Court), Kollam, under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The Administrative Committee, in its 18-09-2017 meeting, resolved to initiate suo motu revisions to correct miscarriages of justice attributed to cryptic Section 258 orders discharging accused. The Court examines the scope of Section 258 Cr.P.C., noting it as an enabling provision to be used only in very special and compelling circumstances where normal evidence can be gathered under Section 254 Cr.P.C., and where continuing proceedings would be futile or defective. It relies on prior jurisprudence: Neela Lohitha Dasan Nadar v. State of Kerala (2003), Radhamany Amma v. Kunju Pillai (1980), and Balakrishna Panicker v. Thevan (1987) to emphasize that Section 258 should be exercised reasonably and judiciously, and that the normal rule— both sides presenting evidence— should be preserved. The Court also cites a previous Suo Motu decision (2019 KHC 188) to reinforce that Section 258 is to be invoked in peculiar or unusual circumstances, not routinely. Ultimately, the Court finds the Magistrates’ discharge orders illegal, sets them aside, and directs the cases to be taken back on file and proceeded in accordance with law, with accused appearing on 15.11.2021. The petitions are allowed in terms of the common order.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 258 Cr.P.C.Section 254 Cr.P.C.Section 397 Cr.P.C.Section 401 Cr.P.C.S.283 IPCS.279 IPCS.337 IPCS.132 r/w 179 MV ActS.3(1) r/w 181, 146 r/w 196 MV Act
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Section 258 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision to be used only in very special and compelling circumstances; normal rule requires both parties to adduce evidence; power to stop proceedings under Section 258 should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional or unusual circumstances; Section 258 must be exercised reasonably and judiciously.
- Section 258 Cr.P.C. should be invoked only where the allegations do not constitute an offence or where there exists serious defects in the prosecution case that go to the root of the matter.
- The view from Neela Lohitha Dasan Nadar v. State of Kerala (2003) and subsequent decisions underscores the exceptional nature of invoking 258.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
No separate submissions recorded on behalf of the applicants; the matter was argued by the Public Prosecutor for the respondents, who contended that the discharge orders under Section 258 Cr.P.C. were illegal and liable to be set aside.
Contentions of Respondents
Public Prosecutor contended that the Magistrates’ discharge orders under Section 258 Cr.P.C. were illegal, that the orders were cryptic, and that the cases should be restored and proceeded with in accordance with law; relied on decisions establishing the proper scope of Section 258.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neela Lohitha Dasan Nadar v. State of Kerala | 2003 (1) KLT 844 | Positive | Court relied on this decision to characterize Section 258 Cr.P.C. as enabling and to be used only in special circumstances. |
| Radhamany Amma v. Kunju Pillai | 1980 KLT 393 | Positive | Cited as precedent supporting that 258 should be used in exceptional circumstances. |
| Balakrishna Panicker v. Thevan | 1987 (1) KLT 628 | Positive | Cited as authority for its interpretation of the exceptional use of Section 258. |
| Suo Motu proceedings as per the resolution of the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 18-09-2017 v. State of Kerala and Others | 2019 (3) KHC 188 | Positive | Court indicates adherence to the view that Section 258 can be invoked only in peculiar/unusual circumstances, following this earlier decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1728/2018 & connected cases and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.RC NO. 1728 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 1424/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM PETITIONER:**
**SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVECOMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18/09/2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM TRAFFIC CR.784/2014.**
- **2 SREEJITH S/O.AJAYAN, PUTHUVAL PURAYIDAM, PULLIKKADA, VADAKKUMBHAGAM CHERI, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE.**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SRI. M C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.RC.1743/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
2
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.RC NO. 1743 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 1728/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM PETITIONER:**
**SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18/09/2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM CITY TRAFFIC, CR.157/2013.**
- **2 BASHEER S/O.YUSAF KUNJU, CHARUVIL PURAYIDATHIL VEEDU,THOLKADA, SOUTH SIDE OF MUNEESHWARAM SWAMY TEMPLE,ASRAMAM CHERI, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE.**
**SRI. M C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.RC.1728/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
3
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943**
**CRL.RC NO. 1757 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 991/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM,**
## **KOLLAM**
## **PETITIONER:**
**SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18-09-2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM CITY TRAFFIC, CR. 651/2015**
- **2 SHIBU**
- **S/O. SASANKAN, AISWARYA VEEDU,S.S BHAVAN, NEAR PULIMOODU JN,MUNDAKKAL CHERI, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE.**
**SRI. M C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.RC.1728/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
4
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.RC NO. 1758 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 1003/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE**
**OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM PETITIONER:**
**SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18-09-2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM CITY TRAFFIC, CR. 664/2015.**
- **2 NANDU S/O. RAJENDRAN, KALATHIL VEEDU,KOLLAKA, KANNETTI,KARUNAGAPALLY.**
**SRI. M C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.RC.1728/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
5
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943**
**CRL.RC NO. 1770 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 1798/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM,**
## **KOLLAM**
## **PETITIONER:**
**SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18-09-2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM CITY TRAFFIC, CR. 1745/2014.**
- **2 SAMSON**
**S/O. ALBI, VAYALIL PUTHENVEEDU, ROYAL NAGAR24,ASHRAMAM CHERI,KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE.**
**SRI. M C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.RC.1728/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
6
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943**
**CRL.RC NO. 1785 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 938/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM,**
## **KOLLAM**
## **PETITIONER:**
**SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18.09.2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY TRAFFIC, CR. 297/2015.**
- **2 SHYAM**
**S/O. FAKHIR MOHAMMED, MUNDIKKAZHIKAM VEETTIL, MUKKAM CHERI, MAYYANAD VILLAGE.**
**SRI. M C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.RC.1728/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
7
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **COMMON ORDER**
## Criminal Revision Case Nos.1728, 1743, 1757, 1758, 1770 and 1785 of 2018 **Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021**
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam informed the High Court that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III (Temporary), Kollam, during the period from 01.08.2016 to 31.12.2016, disposed of several cases pending on the files of that court invoking the powers under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. On 18.09.2017, the Administrative Committee of this Court considered the matter and resolved to initiate steps to register _suo motu_ criminal revision cases as provided under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., finding that there occurred miscarriage of justice in adopting such a procedure for disposing of the cases. Consequently, these Criminal Revision Cases were registered.
2. The following are the details of the cases regarding which these Criminal Revision Cases have been instituted:
|**Cr.R.C.No.**|**S.T.No.**|**Offencespunishable**|
|---|---|---|
|Cr.R.C.No.1728/2018|S.T.No.1424/2015|S.283,IPC|
8
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
|Cr.R.C.No.1743/2018|S.T.No.1728/2015|S.279 & 337,IPC|
|---|---|---|
|Cr.R.C.No.1757/2018|S.T.No.991/2015|S.279 & 283,IPC|
|Cr.R.C.No.1758/2018|S.T.No.1003/2015|S.279, 132 r/w 179<br>of MV Act|
|Cr.R.C.No.1770/2018|S.T.No.1798/2015|S.279, 283, IPC,<br>3(1) r/w 181, 146<br>r/w 196 of MV Act|
|Cr.R.C.No.1785/2018|S.T.No.938/2015|S.279,IPC|
3. On going through the proceedings sheet in each of the said cases, it is seen that the learned Magistrate passed orders under Section 258, invariably, by cryptic orders; although there is difference in the words used, in purport, to the effect that “accused is discharged under Section 258, Cr.P.C.”.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.M.C.Ashi. There was no representation for the respondent(s)/accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the orders in question are illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. This Court considered contours of the powers of a Magistrate while acting under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. in
9
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
## **Neela Lohitha Dasan Nadar v. State of Kerala [2003 (1)**
**KLT 844]** and held that it is an enabling section and is one to be applied in very special circumstances. The Court after referring to the decisions in **Radhamany Amma v. Kunju Pillai [1980 KLT 393]** and **Balakrishna Panicker v. Thevan [1987 (1) KLT 628]** , further held that Section 258 Cr.P.C. is intended to be applied only in very special and compelling circumstances, which make it difficult or impossible for the Magistrate to proceed in the usual way by taking evidence as provided in Section 254 of the Code. Needless to say that the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C, shall be exercised reasonably and judiciously. It should not be forgotten that the normal rule is that both parties do get the opportunity to adduce evidence and the court gives its verdict on the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the evidence in the case. The court may invoke Section 258 Cr.P.C. in a case where the allegations against the accused, even accepting them as true, do not constitute an offence or on being satisfied that there exists serious defects in the
10
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
prosecution case which go to the root of the matter, thereby rendering further proceedings rather impossible or futile. The power to stop the proceedings at any stage has to be sparingly used and that too in exceptional or unusual circumstances.
6. Earlier, legality of the orders of the Magistrate discharging accused in another batch of cases of similar nature was considered by this Court in _**Suo motu**_ **proceedings as per the resolution of the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 18.09.2017 v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (3) KHC 188]** . The view taken was “Section 258 can be invoked only in peculiar and unusual circumstances in cases, wherein no _prima facie_ case is made out against the accused or when the accusation does not actually constitute an offence or for the reason that the prosecution is bound to fail on account of a technical defect. For the reason that the accused had absconded or that despite the initiation of coercive proceedings, his presence could not be
11
## Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
secured is no reason to invoke Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. From the proceedings sheet, it does not appear that the learned Magistrate had made any genuine endeavour to secure the presence of the accused by exhausting the provisions under the Code. The order is laconic and is not supported by any reason. The learned Magistrate has exceeded in its powers in invoking provisions of Section 258 of the Code and hence, cannot be sustained, the same being illegal and irregular.”
7. Similar are the situations in these cases as well. Having considered the matter in detail, I am of the view that there is no reason to take a different view from the decision rendered in _**Suo motu**_ **proceedings** (supra).
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The orders of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused in the respective cases are set aside. The learned Magistrate will take back the cases on file and proceed with in accordance with law. The respective respondent(s)/accused will appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III
12
Crl.Rev.Case No.1728 of 2018 & connected cases
(Temporary), Kollam on 15.11.2021.
**Sd/-**
**P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE**
dkr