Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Sets Aside Magistrate’s Order, Says ‘Speaking Order is Necessary Before Invoking Section 323 Cr.P.C. : Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Ernakulam, Kerala: In a pivotal ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, in the case C.P. No. 14 of 2020. The Honourable Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan emphasized that a “speaking order is necessary before invoking the powers under Section 323 Cr.P.C.”

The case initially involved eight accused who were charged under various sections of the IPC, including 324, 506 (i)(ii), and 308. The learned Magistrate had converted the case from a calendar case (CC) to a committal proceeding (CP), invoking Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan said, “To invoke Section 323 Cr.P.C, it should appear to the Magistrate that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. The Magistrate is required to give a reason for thinking that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, while invoking Section 323 Cr.P.C.” He further elaborated that the Magistrate’s order was not a speaking order, and therefore needs to be reconsidered.

The High Court, therefore, set aside the previous order, and directed the Magistrate Court to reconsider whether Section 323 Cr.P.C should be invoked or not. This directive comes in light of the observations made in the High Court’s order, emphasizing the need for a proper “speaking order” before making such a significant change in the trial’s jurisdiction.

The case has been sent back to the lower court for reconsideration, in line with the High Court’s observations.

Legal experts say this judgment could serve as a precedent, reiterating the importance of due process and proper reasoning in legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2023

KUTHIRALAMUTTAM SAJI   VS  STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News