[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kesavan vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3331 OF 2006
JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2006 IN Crl.A NO.310 OF 2005 OF
SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE
CC NO.28/03 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,
PERAMBRA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 KESAVAN
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.PARON, EDUKKATTUMKARA (H), KOORACHUNDU AMSOM,
ATHIYODI, KOYILANDY TALUK.
2 RAJAN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.APPUKKUTTY, PALODY H, KOOTSVHUND AMSOM DESOM,,
KOYILANDY TALUK.
3 BIJU
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.SREEDHARAN, PALODY H, KOOTSVHUND AMSOM DESOM,
KOYILANDY TALUK.
4 RAJAN
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.KANARAN, KATTODYIL (H), CHAKKITTAPPARA AMSOM,
NARIMAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
5 SUNIL
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, CHENNAMKULATH (H), CHAKKITTAPARA AMSOM DESOM,
KOYILANDY TALUK.
6 JOHN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.SCARIA, CHENNAMKULATH (H), CHAKKITTAPARA AMSOM
DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
2026:KER:13416
Crl.R.P 3331/2006
2
7 BALAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.THEYYONTH, OOTTERYMEETHAL (H), KOORACHUNDU AMSOM,
KALANJALI DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.TOMY JOHN VETTATH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY, AMICUS CURIAE,
SRI SUDHEER G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13416
Crl.R.P 3331/2006
3
ORDER
This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, and the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Kozhikode, in CC No.28/2003 and Crl. Appeal No.310/2005 respectively,
convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
2. Since there was no representation from the part of the
petitioners on repeated posting dates, notices were duly issued to the
petitioners intimating that in the event of their further non-representation,
the case would be disposed of by this Court in their absence. Still the
petitioners did not appear. In the above circumstances, this Court appointed
Adv. Mr.Aaron Zacharias Benny, as amicus curiae to represent the petitioners.
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 23.01.2026,
the learned amicus curiae representing the revision petitioners pointed out
that the Appellate Court has decided the appeal without hearing the counsel
for the appellants, and that the above verdict is apparently hit by the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Md. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [AIR (2011)
SC 1222].
2026:KER:13416
4
4. The learned Amicus Curie as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor are heard today on the above matter.
5. The impugned judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions
Court on 24.06.2006 in Crl.Appeal No.310/2025 makes it clear that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge had disposed of the above appeal without
hearing the counsel for the appellants, since there was no representation on
the part of the appellants even after repeated adjournments having been
given to them for advancing arguments.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae has brought the attention of this
Court to Para 7 of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid case which is extracted hereunder:
"We are of the opinion that even assuming that the counsel for
the accused does not appear because of the counsel's negligence or
deliberately, even then the Court should not decide a criminal case
against the accused in the absence of his counsel since an accused in
a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in
such a situation the Court should appoint another counsel as amicus
curiae to defend the accused. This is because liberty of a person is the
most important feature of our Constitution. Article 21 which
guarantees protection of life and personal liberty is the most important
fundamental right of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. Article 21 can be said to be the 'heart and soul' of the
fundamental rights."
7. In view of the law that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
2026:KER:13416
5
Court in the aforesaid decision, the judgment rendered by the Additional
Sessions Court in Crl.Appeal without hearing the counsel for the appellants,
would be legally invalid. In the above circumstances, it is highly necessary to
set aside the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court and remand back the
case to the said Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
In the result, the revision stands allowed as follows:
1) The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions
Court II, Kozhikode, in Crl.Appeal No.310/2005, upholding the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, in CC No.28/2003, is hereby set
aside.
2. The case is remanded back to the Court of Sessions,
Kozhikode, with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh after
hearing the counsel for the petitioners/appellants and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. In the absence of the counsel representing the
appellants, the Appellate Court shall appoint a counsel who is
practising on the criminal side as Amicus Curiae, and decide the
case after hearing the learned Amicus Curiae assigned with the
responsibility of arguing the case for the appellants.
2026:KER:13416
6
4. Being an appeal of the year 2005, the Sessions Court
shall give top priority for the disposal of the appeal.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP
