M.C.Kuriachan v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/19TH POUSHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 6796 of 2014 ------------------------- IN CR.M.P NO.522/2011 IN C.C. NO.150/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD PETITIONER:
------------ M.C.KURIACHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, "MOUNT VIEW", MANAPPULLY KAVU, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SRI.G.RAJESH (DIWAN) RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. GLADIS V.R., AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.MARY STELLA RODRIGUES, STELL DALE, HILL VIEW NAGAR, DHONI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3. MARY STELLA RODRIGUES, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.RODRIGUES, STELLA DALE, HILL VIEW NAGAR, DHONI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
R2&3 BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6796 of 2014 ------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
------------------------ ANNEXURE-A1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CJMC, PALAKKAD AS CC NO.150/2006.
ANNEXURE-A2. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/2/2011 PASSED BY THE JFMC, PALAKKAD IN CRL.M.PNO.522/2011 IN CC NO.150/2006. ANNEXURE-A3.CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/8/2014 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD IN CRL.RP NO.20/2011. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.6796 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2015 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C. No.150/2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad. The offence alleged by him in the complaint is one punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent herein is the petitioner's divorced wife and the third respondent herein is the mother of the second respondent. The allegation against the respondents in the complaint is that they committed theft of a cooking range belonging to the petitioner. It appears that when dispute in matrimony was going on, the wife took away the cooking range claiming that it belongs to her. Anyway, a complaint of theft came before the court.
Pending the proceeding the complainant made an application as C.M.P No.522/2011 to summon the Sales Tax Superintendent to prove his ownership over the alleged cooking range. Finding that no purpose will be served by examining such a witness, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on 24.2.2011.
Crl.M.C No.6796 of 2014 proceeding.
2.
On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials I find that the application was rightly dismissed by the learned Magistrate. It is not known how the petitioner's ownership over the alleged cooking range could be proved by a Sales Tax Superintendent. He may, at the most, have the accounts submitted by the dealer, in his office. Such accounts will not contain any bill or voucher, and such accounts will not prove the petitioner's case that the cooking range belongs to him. The petitioner will have to prove his ownership by other materials, if possible.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab