The Supreme Court has taken up the case of Ratheesh, a fisherman who was wrongly convicted of dacoity by a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court in Kerala. Ratheesh's case raises important questions about the limits of jurisdiction of CJM courts and the administration of justice in the state.

 

Ratheesh's case dates back 25 years, and he was wrongly tried for a serious offence like dacoity. He argues that the police version of the incident did not even include the basic ingredients of such a crime. There was no medical evidence of any injuries or hurt inflicted on the victim, and the incident was based on the victim's account alone.

 

Under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a CJM court can pass any sentence authorized by law except for a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. In Ratheesh's case, the CJM court exceeded its jurisdiction by convicting him for dacoity, which carries a punishment of life imprisonment or sentence up to 10 years and fine.

 

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State of Kerala on the appeal filed by Ratheesh, represented by advocates Tomy Chacko and Ankolekar Gurudatta. The court has granted Ratheesh exemption from surrendering until further orders and listed the case for detailed hearing in July.

 

This case has important implications for the justice system in Kerala and raises important questions about the limits of jurisdiction of CJM courts. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this case and what implications it has for the administration of justice in the state. Reference source: TH

 

UPSC Main Exam Question

 

Discuss the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court in trying and convicting an accused for the offence of dacoity under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Examine the implications of the Supreme Court's decision to examine the CJM court's jurisdiction in convicting Ratheesh in a case of dacoity.

 

Answer: The jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court in trying and convicting an accused for the offence of dacoity under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code is limited by Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The CJM court can pass any sentence authorized by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. In the case of Ratheesh, the Supreme Court has agreed to examine how the CJM court in Kerala "exceeded its jurisdiction" to try and convict him for dacoity.

 

The implications of the Supreme Court's decision to examine the CJM court's jurisdiction in convicting Ratheesh are significant. It raises important questions about the judiciary system in Kerala and the court administration. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Ratheesh, it could lead to a review of similar cases tried and convicted by the CJM court in Kerala. It could also lead to a review of the limitations of the jurisdiction of the CJM court in trying and convicting an accused for the offence of dacoity. The decision could have implications for the administration of justice in the state and could set a precedent for other cases in the future.

 

In conclusion, the examination of the jurisdiction of the CJM court in trying and convicting an accused for the offence of dacoity is an important issue that has been raised by the case of Ratheesh. The Supreme Court's decision to examine the CJM court's jurisdiction could have far-reaching implications for the administration of justice in Kerala and could set a precedent for other cases in the future.