Subrahmanian vs. State Of Kerala

REVISED

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP.NO(s). 8348/2012 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2012 (From the judgement and order dated 31/01/2012 in CRLRP No.1046/2002, of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM) UTHAMAN @ PURUSHOTHAMAN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from surrendering) Date: 13/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA (IN CHAMBERS) For Petitioner(s) Mr.Himinder Lal,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application seeking exemption from surrendering is rejected except for Petitioner No.5 who is stated to be mentally challenged. This fact is found mentioned in the impugned judgment of the High Court also. Under the circumstance, I am of the opinion that the SLP of the Petitioner No.5 may be considered on merits without insisting for the proof of surrender. However, proof of surrender for the other four petitioners shall be filed within a period of four weeks. ..2/- : 2 : Thus the application seeking exemption from surrender is allowed for petitioner No.5 but stands dismissed for the other four petitioners. (GEETA AHUJA) (NEELAM ARORA) SR. P.A. COURT MASTER ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP.NO(s). 8348/2012 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2012 (From the judgement and order dated 31/01/2012 in CRLRP No.1046/2002, of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)

UTHAMAN @ PURUSHOTHAMAN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from surrendering) Date: 13/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA (IN CHAMBERS) For Petitioner(s) Mr.Himinder Lal,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application seeking exemption from surrendering is rejected except for Respondent No.5 who is stated to be mentally challenged. This fact is found mentioned in the impugned judgment of the High Court also. Under the circumstance, I am of the opinion that the SLP of the Respondent No.5 may be considered on merits without insisting for the proof of surrender. However, proof of surrender for the other four respondents shall be filed within a period of four weeks. Thus the application seeking exemption from surrender is allowed for Respondent No.5 but stands dismissed for the other four respondents.

SR. P.A. COURT MASTER

(GEETA AHUJA) (NEELAM ARORA)