Emil K.John vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11010 Ker

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

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