Mohammed Ali C vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 11106 Ker

Crl.MC No.6825/2023                            1/1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
            Thursday, the 26th day of October 2023 / 4th Karthika, 1945
                 UNNUMB. CRMA.NO.1/2023 IN CRL.MC NO. 6825 OF 2023
  S.T. No. 1714/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
   APPLICANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

          ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-
          REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN
          - 673006.

   RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED AND 1ST RESPONDENT:

       1. MOHAMMED ALI C., AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. UNNEN KUTTY C. CHELAKKOTTIL
          HOUSE, PURAMANNUR P.O. IRIMBILIYAM, PURAMANNUR MALAPPURAM, PIN -
          676552.
       2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to i) Allow the
   Clarification Petition by clarifying the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in
   Crl.M.C 6825 of 2023 dated 19/9/2023 and the relief sought to be limited
   to the petitioner; ii) Direct the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate
   I, Tirur to restore the ST No.1714 of 2015 with respect to the other
   accused.
        This Un.Numbered Crl.M.Application        coming on for orders on
   26/10/2023 and upon perusing the application and this Court's order dated
   19.09.2023 and upon hearing the arguments of ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,
   Advocate for the Applicant (2nd Respondent in Crl.M.C) and of SRI RENJITH
   RAJAPPAN, ARUN KUMAR M.A, Advocates for R1 (Petitioner in Crl.M.C ), and
   the Public Prosecutor for R2 ( 1st Respondent in Crl.M.C) the court on
   the same day passed the following:

                                          ORDER

A perusal of the order itself would show that the proceedings is quashed only as against the petitioner in the Crl.M.C is concerned. There is no ambiguity in the order. Therefore, no clarification is necessary.

                                                 Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE




26-10-2023                       /True Copy/                             Assistant Registrar