Kerala High Court
Emil K.John vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 978 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP.NO.4023/2019 IN CC NO.872
OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS/1ST ACCUSED:
EMIL K.JOHN,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O A.S.JOHN, MANIPPURACKAL HOUSE,
AMBALAPPARA ROAD, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANAD-682 030.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN
SMT.DHANYA BABU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
BY ADV. SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 978 OF 2019
2
ORDER
A discharge application was maintained in a case charge-sheeted by the police alleging offence under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC. It is in connection with the receipt of a certain amount under the guise of offering a job abroad.
2. The case advanced that the accused had received a certain amount under the guise of an offer to provide job abroad would sufficiently show and bring out a case of receipt of property either fraudulently or dishonestly, and if it is proved, the offence under Section 420 IPC will stand attracted. Necessarily it is not a case wherein discharge can be ordered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced extensive arguments pertaining to the maintainability of the present proceedings on the ground that only three cases which would fall within the sphere of one year can be tried CRL.REV.PET NO. 978 OF 2019 3 jointly as per the mandate under Section 219 Cr.P.C. But it is not a matter to be looked into at the stage of discharge. Necessarily, the revision fails.
4. But, Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1, there will be a direction not to insist physical presence of the accused, unless it is found to be necessary to proceed further in the matter and also for the purpose of extending bail.
The Crl.R.P. will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV