V. SUJATHA ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 19-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
V. SUJATHA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 279 and 337-Accident-Bus Driver on "trial nm ''-Driver 
charged for rash and negligent driving-Defence of brake failure-Witnesses 
from Transport Corporation supporting the defence-Trial Court convicting 
and sentencing the accused-Appellate Court setting aside the order on 
reappreciation of entire evidenc~igh Court interfering and setting aside the 
order-Held : High Court was 1n e"or in upsetting the well considered 
D judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on merits. 
Sections 120;.B, 420, 467 and 471-f'artnership Jinn-Forging docu-
ments and exporting sub-standard sea food-Cheating the Government agen-
cies and foreign buyer-Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting all three 
E accused-High Court maintaining the acquittal except that of the Managing 
Director and passing order of conviction and sentence against him-Validity 
of. 
Judicial Discipline : 
p 
Disparaging remarks against a Judge of Subordinate Court or against a 
person or authority whose conduct comes for consideration-Special care to 
be taken-Making uncalled for remarks against such persons or authorities 
would be violative of judicial disciplin~igh Court making such remarks 
against Chief Judicial Magistrat~eld: uncalled for and hence expunged. 
G 
Words tznd phrases : 
'Trail mn''-Meaning of. 
Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 1994 : 
H 
The appellant was a driver working for the Kerala State Road 
646 
V.SUJATIIAv. STAIB 
647 
Transport Corporation. The bus he used to drive, was under repair in a A 
workshop. After repairs, he took the bus for .trial· run. According to the 
prosecution he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering 
human life or causing hurt or injury to pedestrians and other vehicular 
traffic. The appellant attributed the accident to brake failure. The defence 
witnesses, who were mechanics of the Transport Corporation deposed that B 
after the accident the master cylinder of the hydraulic brake system of the 
bus had to be changed. Trial Court disbelieved the defence witnesses and 
relying on the evidence of PW 3 the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector as 
regards the road-worthiness of the bus, convicte<i the appellant for offen-
ces under sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 
500 in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days for C 
offence under Section 279 I.P .C. but no separate sentence was imposed for 
offence under section 337 I.P.C. 
Appellant preferred an appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
who allowed the appeal after reappraising the entire evidence and set aside D 
the convictions and sentence. The evidence of PW 3 came under heavy 
criticism by her. She held that when PW 3 had not cared to check up the 
hydraulic brake system, his Inspection Report has tO be negatived. 
State of Kerala preferred an appeal and it was allowed by the High 
Court. The present appeal is against the High Court's.order. 
E 
Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 1988 
The appellant was the Managing Director of a firm engaged in the 
export of sea foods. He and the other two partners were accused of entering 
into a criminal conspiracy for export of310 cartons of sub-standard frozen F ~ 
shrimps by forging and using quality control Certificate and Certificate of 
Origin as genuine knowing them to be forged in order to receive payment 
of price from Bank. It was also alleged that using the said forged certificate 
as genuine, he obtained clearance from the customs for 'shipment and 
exported sub-standard goods, thereby cheating the customs Department, 
the Export Inspection Agency and the Marine Products Export Develop- G 
ment Agency as also the foreign buyers. The Chief Judicial Magistrate 
acquitted the accused of all the offences. On appeal by the C.B.L, the High 
Court maintained the acquittal of the wife and brother of the appellant, 
but convicted the appellant under sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. awarding 
him punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under H 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP.3S.C.R. 
A each court and a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default of which simple imprisonment 
for six months. Against this judgment of the High Court the present appeal 
B 
c 
was preferred. 
-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 653-55 and 652 of 1989 
These appeals were preferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.