The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on the acquittal of a co-accused who was absent during trial, citing that no benefit can be claimed when the primary trial was ineffective.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 1623 of 2008()
CC.959/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA
PETITIONER: ACCUSED(A1 &A2)
BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY
SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J.
Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2008
Dated this the 23rd day of May 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners along with a co-accused faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 323 and 341 I.P.C. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They were not available for trial. Third accused alone was available for trial. In the trial against the third accused, the injured victim/CW1 did not appear. His presence was not procured. Only one witness was examined in that case. That witness - PW1, allegedly an eye witness, did not support the prosecution case. Strangely the learned Magistrate said that “all remaining witnesses are from outside the district. So their presence could not be procured”. Therefore after examining the hostile witness PW1, the proceedings were closed and the third accused was found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioners was directed to be split up and re-numbered. The petitioners claimed to be aggrieved by the impugned order.
Crl.M.C.No.1623/08
2
been discontinued. It is prayed that invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the proceedings against accused 1 and 2 may also be quashed. I am afraid the request cannot be accepted. It is not a case where the learned Magistrate has found that the case against all the accused persons including the accused who have not available for trial is “only untrue”. Rule ........... of the Kerala Criminal Rules and Practices hence have no application whatsoever. The decision in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)] is authority for the proposition that an absconding co-accused cannot claim any benefit or advantage on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused. More so in a case like the instant one where even the injured witness has not been examined in the trial against the acquitted co-accused. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the prayer of the petitioners is without any merit.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.1623/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.1623/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can claim benefit or advantage from the acquittal of an absent co-accused to quash their criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of PoliceRelied on¶26
Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JOHNSON
SREEKUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
R. BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R. BASANT
Parties & counsel
