Trial Courts Should Pass Speaking Orders In Main Case & Counter-Case, Refrain From Dismissing Counter Cases On Flimsy Grounds: Kerala High Court

Trial Courts Should Pass Speaking Orders In Main Case & Counter-Case, Refrain From Dismissing Counter Cases On Flimsy Grounds

Case: Amir & Anr v. State of Kerala

Coram: Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan

Case No.: CRL.A NO. 2400 OF 2006

Court Observation: “When a Sessions court tries a case and counter case, the trial court cannot take such flimsy stand to discharge the accused in the counter case and thereafter proceed with the main case. It will only defeat the procedure laid down by this Court and the Apex Court on the trial of the case and counter case. I am sorry to say that, the learned judge tried to avoid the trial of the counter case by discharging the accused in it on a flimsy ground. This type of short cut methods should be avoided by the trial courts while dealing with case and counter cases.”

“Even in a fit case, if the trial court feels that the accused in the counter case is to be discharged, it is desirable to pass such orders along with the judgment in the main case, especially in cases where the counter case is committed after the trial in the main case is started. In other situations in which both cases are committed together and came up for consideration together, the Court should conduct a hearing at the stage of framing charge in both cases, and the charge can be framed in one case if the Court thinks so and a discharge order can be passed in the other case if it is a deserving case, but it should be on the same day by the same judge. The order should be separate and should pronounce one after the other. In such situation also, it is desirable to pass a speaking order while framing charge in the main case separately while passing the discharge order in other case.”

“Usually, the main case will be tried first, and after the trial the counter case will be started. In a situation where the trial of the main case is over and thereafter the counter case committed and the trial court is of the opinion that this is a case to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the matter can be heard at that stage itself and order of discharge can be passed along with the decision in the main case, one after other. Such a procedure should be followed unless there are other practical difficulties to proceed like that.”

“It is well settled that, as far as case and counter cases are concerned, each case has to be decided on its own merit and the evidence is to be recorded in one case cannot be used in its cross case. The only caution is that both trials should be conducted one after the other. ”

“However, since the appellant did not challenge the discharge order of the trial court, the Court restrained itself from commenting further on the same.”

Previous Posts

Bottles For Sample Collection Not Cleaned On Spot: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal For Alleged Offences Under Food Adulteration Act

Kerala Education Rules | Only State-Authorised Officer Empowered To Extend Higher Secondary School Teachers’ Suspension Beyond 15 Days: High Court

S.19(2) Food Adulteration Act | Vendor Not Liable For Articles Purchased From Manufacturer With Written Warranty: Gujarat High Court

Defamation Cases For Reporting Details Of FIR Nothing But Attempt To Stifle Reporter: Bombay High Court

Conducting Exams For LLB Admissions- University Rules Prevails Over Bar Council Of India Rules: Gujarat High Court

Plea Of Adjustment Should Be Raised Before Institution Of Suit: Kerala High Court Reiterates

It Has Never Been The Effort Of Courts To Make Death Penalty Redundant Or Non Existent: Supreme Court

Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court Download Judgement

School Girl Injured After Conductor Signals Driver To Move While She Was Boarding The Bus: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 308 IPC

Rent Controller Cannot Call Upon Landlord To Carry Out Repairs Of Tenanted Premises Under Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturers From Using LOOZOUT Trademark, Imposes Rs. 2 Lakhs Cost

Keywords

Trial Courts, Speaking Orders, Flimsy Grounds