Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

K.T. JOSEPH versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Decided
8 May 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 20 · 2009 INSC 758

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 20, margin F

2

A small issue relating to the transfer of the proceedings in CC 1290 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam forms the foundation for these proceedings. By an order in Criminal Revision Petition no.1858 of 2008 a learned Single Judge directed transfer of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Certain observations were made against the Judicial Officer and his conduct. Learned Single Jud~e has observed that after the amendment to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') with effect from 23.6.2006 by Central Act 25/2005 it is mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of Code. Learned Single Judge noted that the Magistrate had emphasized that he was considering the complaint at the pre cognizance stage which according to him was not correct. By deciding to examine the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202 of Code, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence and he was not considering the sworn statements of the witnesses at the pre cognizance stage. Learned Single Judge felt that enquiry was'mandatory after 23.6.2006.

pp. 20–21, margin G

3

The legal position is unexceptionable.

p. 21, margin C

4

In the background facts we do not think that any exception can be taken to the transfer as directed by learned Single Judge. The observations regarding the conduct are unnecessary and stand deleted~ Learned Single Judge has directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall have discretion to record further sworn statements if necessary in case he decides to take cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid observations and directions are also in order.

p. 21, margin C

5

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

p. 21, margin F