Skip to content

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

S. Vijayan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Investigation cannot be ordered on the basis of a complaint which is not supported by genuine materials. The Court must be satisfied that an offence is ‘disclosed’ by the materials produced by the complainant. (2021) 11 KCC 401

Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

  • Criminal

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 87 and 204(1) (b) – Merely for the reason that they were absconding during the period of investigation, after filing the final report unless reasons are recorded, warrant of arrest cannot be issued. (2021) 9 KCC 316 : 2021 (5) KHC 623

State v. Syed Shaikoya

  • Order

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Ss. 197 & 239 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 12 & 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 468, 471, 420 & 120B – The Directorate of Education of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep had directed to supply, free of cost, ready-made uniforms to the school children for the academic year 2005-06 – Allegation against accused 4 and 8 is that they blindly accepted the certificate issued by Accused No.9 without conducting inspection of the uniform materials and consequently, sub-standard materials happened to be purchased – The prosecution has no case that accused 4 and 8 were experts in the field to assess the quality of dress materials – When accused 4 and 8 agreed with the report given by the expert member, it cannot be found that their act had no reasonable connection with their official duties. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain sanction under Section 197 of the Code for prosecution against them. Cognizance of the offences taken against them, without such sanction, was bad in law. 2021 (5) KCC 9

M. Sulfiker v. State of Kerala

  • Order

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Framing of Charge – In order to frame charge against the accused, a strong suspicion is sufficient. A microscopic examination of the materials produced by the prosecution is not warranted at that stage. The evaluation of the materials produced by the prosecution shall be conducted by the court only for the limited purpose of finding out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused. 2021 (5) KCC 6

Pradeep @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala

  • Order

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Periya Twin Murder Case – Long period of detention in jail, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to grant bail in a case in which the accusation is of committing double murder. 2021 (4) KCC 214 : 2021 (4) KHC 358

Savitha S. Kannan v. Inspector of Police

  • Order

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Suspension of the Order of Conviction – The question whether the conviction entered against the petitioner by the trial court is on sufficient evidence or not cannot be considered in this application for suspension of the order of conviction as it would amount to prejudging the merits of the appeal itself. Sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence adduced against the petitioner by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against her cannot be decided in this application. 2021 (4) KCC 144 : 2021 (4) KHC 421

State of Kerala v. Maju

  • Order

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether the investigation officer is entitled to police custody of the accused after the expiry of the first 15 days of remand on the ground that the application for police custody though filed in time, was not allowed because of the quarantine of the accused following their getting infected with COVID-19 virus during judicial custody ? Held, no exceptions can be made even during COVID pandemic to the statutory provisions under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. – The accused can still be subjected to interrogation in judicial custody with the permission of the court for the purpose of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but not in police custody. 2021 (4) KCC 141 : 2021 (4) KHC 344 : 2021 (4) KLT 648

Sivakumar v. State of Kerala

  • Order

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – S. 33 (5) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – S. 311 – Recalling a child victim to testify repeatedly about the incident has to be discouraged, either by the prosecution or by the defence. 2021 (4) KCC 135 : 2021 (4) KHC 416 : 2021 (4) KLT 685

Sivanandan v. State of Kerala

  • Order

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Ss. 427 & 482 – The petitioner was involved in 14 criminal cases pending before different courts. All the cases pertain to offences like theft, housebreaking, lurking house trespass by night, theft of property from inside the house, etc. He pleaded guilty and was convicted in all the cases for a period ranging between 6 months imprisonment to 5 years imprisonment and fine – the petitioner had already undergone more than 15 years imprisonment and the maximum imprisonment that was awarded to him in one case is only 5 years – In all the remaining cases, he is only been sentenced to lessor imprisonment – the petitioner had not even contested the cases and had pleaded guilty, in consequence of which he was sentenced to imprisonment. He is more than 60 years old and has been in prison for more than 18 years now. Under the circumstances, directed to release the accused forthwith recording that he has undergone the sentence in all the crimes in which he was convicted. 2021 (4) KCC 123 : 2021 (4) KHC 375