STATE OF KERALA Vs. SOPHIA ROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five accused were charge sheeted and tried before the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum in C.C. No. 8 of 1984 for offences punishable under S.120-B, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420, 201 and 109 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of the preliminary hearing before framing charge, the counsel for the first accused raised a contention that the first accused is a minor and therefore the trial is vitiated. The learned Magistrate found the first accused to be a child and therefore came to the conclusion that the charge has to be split up. In para 9 of the order it is stated by the Magistrate that the only course open to the Court is to direct separate trials of the first accused and the other accused under S.23(2) of the Kerala Children's Act.

(2.) The charge against the first accused included offence alleged to have been committed by her at the time when she was a juvenile as well as offences committed by her subsequently when she became a major. In that respect, the Magistrate said in para 9 of the order that the learned Special Prosecutor will be entitled to withdraw and file a fresh charge sheet if he sticks on bis case against accused 1 and 2 regarding the alleged acts committed by the first accused on 21-1-1980 and afterwards. Anyhow, in the last paragraph of the order the Magistrate disposed of the matter in this way:

(3.) This is the order that is sought to be revised by the State. This is one of the cases popularly known as the mark list case. First accused appeared for the Pre degree examination in 1979 and obtained a pass with second class from the St. Teresa's College, Ernakulam. Second accused is her father. In the mark list received from the college on 30-8-1978, the total number of marks secured by the first accused was shown as 249. With this mark, it would have been impossible for her to secure admission for the M.B.B.S. The prosecution case is that with the help of accused 3, 4 and 5, accused 1 and 2 inflated the marks and secured admission to the M.B.B.S. on the basis of an application submitted on 8-12-1978. At that time, the first accused was a juvenile. Subsequent to her attaining majority on 21-3-1980 she is alleged to have forged mark list and produced it again for recognition for appearance in the first year examination. It was in this connection that the Magistrate said that the Special Prosecutor will be entitled to file a fresh charge sheet if he sticks on his case against accused 1 and 2 regarding the alleged acts committed on 21-3-1980 and afterwards.