Kerala High Court directs subordinate courts to ensure petitions contain mandated seal, payment of court fees

The Kerala High Court recently directed the subordinate courts in the State to comply with Rules 28 and 29 of the Criminal Rules of Practice that mandate a seal on all complaints and petitions forwarded to the court, as well as to ensure that requisite court fees have been paid [CP Pappachan v State of Kerala & Anr]..Justice A Badharudeen issued the direction upon noticing that many complaints and petitions that come before the court do not contain a seal as mandated under Section 28 of the Criminal Rules of Practice or do not comply the requirement to pay court fees. “It is noticed that many complaints and petitions forwarded to this Court do not contain a seal, as mandated under Rule 28. Similarly, non-compliance regarding noting the court fee payable in the petition filed before a criminal court also is a serious matter. Therefore, all the subordinate courts are directed to comply with Rules 28 and 29 of the Criminal Rules of Practice in strict sense without fail,” the order stated..The Court further said that as per the principle of Actus curiae neminem gravabit (act of Court shall prejudice no one), the actions of the court staff in not ensuring compliance with the rules, cannot be a reason to deny relief to any party before the court.“It is the settled law that fault committed by the court shall not stand in the way of non-suiting the aggrieved party before the court. The maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" embodies the said principle. That is to say, the act of Court shall prejudice no one. In such a situation, Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong,” the Court said in its order..The Court was considering a plea challenging an order passed by a Magistrate court in a case in which the petitioner was the accused. The petitioner alleged that the Magistrate court order had condoned the delay in filing by the complainant, even though no plea was filed to condone the delay. It was also contended that was no sufficient cause and notice to the accused.On this ground, he also sought to quash all proceedings against him before the Magistrate court. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay petition had no seal and also that court fee had not been remitted. Therefore, the delay petition is a fabricated one as Rules 28 (Date stamping of papers and initiating of FIR by Magistrates) and 29 (Cancellation of stamps) of the Criminal Rules of Practice have been not complied with, it was argued..However, the Court noted that the magistrate had issued notice to the petitioner on the date the complaint was filed and on receipt of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the court and consequently acting on the submissions in the affidavit, the delay petition was allowed and finally the delay condoned. Only after that was cognisance taken. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the same. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Yash Thomas Mannully and Soman P Paul. The respondents were represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.