SANTHOSHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Reference is registered on the basis of a report dt.28.9.2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Alleppey. There were two accused in Crime No.123 of 2002. As per the final report, C.P.No. 93 of 2004 was registered. As per order dt. 15.2.2005, the case was committed. Actually only the second accused was apprehended and the first accused was not available. The case against the first accused was refiled as C.P. 9 of 2005.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge registered the Sessions case assuming that both the accused had been committed, on the basis of an erroneous statement made to that effect in the committal order. The learned Magistrate had actually refiled the case against the first accused as C.P. 9 of 2005. On realising the error, the learned Magistrate reported the matter to the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, because of want of jurisdictional competence to set aside the erroneous order of committal of the first accused, has submitted the report dt. 28.9.2006. Crl. Ref.No. 2 of 2007 2

(3.) The confusion has arisen on account of a careless and inadvertent error committed by the learned Magistrate. Though such error causes concern, I am satisfied in the circumstances the prayer can be allowed with a specific rider that such errors should not have occurred and should not recur.