KUNJUVARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in Crl. M. C. 2075/96 was the revision petitioner in Crl. R. P. 736/92 and the second party in Crl. R. C. 84/92. He was the accused person in C.C. 153/87 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, a case charged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki for an offence under S.326 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 17.10.1986 at about 8 p.m. the accused person caused a stab injury to PW 1, George Alias Joy from the courtyard of house No. VI/137 in Vazhathope Panchayat belonging to his brother Parackal Mathai, causing permanent loss of sight in the right eye and thus caused grievous hurt punishable under S.326 IPC. PW 1, who sustained the injury was taken to the Thadiambatt hospital and from there to the Thodupuzha hospital and then to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He gave Ext. P1, first information statement to the Gandhinagar Police. On that basis Ext. P4, F.I.R. was registered by the Gandhinagar Police and later made over to the Idukki Police Station, where it was registered as Crime 160/86 Ext. P5. The case was investigated by PWs 8 to 10, the Head Constables and PW 11, the then Sub Inspector, Idukki, who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. In support of the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked . DW 1 was examined and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked for the defence also. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under S.326 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In Crl. A. 20/90 to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence by judgment dated 25.7.1992. Crl. R. P. 736/92 was preferred by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence entered by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. When the revision petition came up for admission, it was noticed that no compensation had been awarded and so, Crl. R. C. 84/92 was registered suo motu and notice was issued to the accused to show cause why he should not be called upon to pay appropriate compensation to P.W. 1, the injured.

(2.) Crl. R. P. 736/92 had been filed by Adv. Benoy Thomas, who had entered appearance in Crl. R. C. 84/92 also. But he had relinquished his vakalath and a fresh vakalath had been filed by Adv. Sergi Joseph Thomas in September, 1994 itself. Without noticing this, Crl. R. P. 736/92 along with Crl. R. C. 84/92 was listed for hearing in the VIIth Court on 28.6.1996 afternoon. In the list only the name of Adv. Binoy Thomas, who had relinquished the vakalath was shown. The name of Adv. Sergi Joseph Thomas was not shown. The learned Judge heard the Public Prosecutor and passed a judgment on merits dismissing Crl. R. P. 736/92 and allowing Crl. R. C. 84/92 with a direction to pay the fine amount as compensation to the complainant. The judgment does not make it clear whether there was any representation for the revision petitioner. It is submitted that there was no representation on his behalf.

(3.) Crl. R. P. 2075/96 has been filed to recall the judgment in Crl. R. P. 736/92 and the order in Crl. R. C. 84/92 submitting that the petitioner's Advocate did not have an opportunity to advance his arguments in support of the revision petition as he was not aware of the listing of the case for hearing.