P.SATHISH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Once upon a time, under the canopy of justice sat the Judicial Magistrate who exercised preventive jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that law and order prevailed in the areas under his jurisdiction. Docket explosion, delay and other allied reasons in the regular courts necessitated the statutory transfer of this canopy to an Executive Magistrate: a revenue official who exercised jurisdiction upon information being laid by the police. The canopy rested uneasily over the head of the revenue official as well. The police, like the proverbial camel in the tent, occasionally got their noses into the canopy but were stopped in the tracks by the Courts. Then in 2013, the camel, in its entirety, snuggled itself in and the revenue official/Executive Magistrate was ousted from the canopy and left in the cold. The significance of this short narrative would unfurl in the discussion that follows:

(2.) On 30/1/2023, we heard the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, the State Public Prosecutor, and the learned Amicus Curiae and with their assistance, the questions under reference were reformulated as under:

(3.) Mr. V.C.Janardhanan, learned counsel who appeared for some of the petitioners in this batch submitted as under: