Partly allowed

Parambattupalliyali Muhammedkutty v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2008Crl.MC/3349/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the Court considered a petition to quash proceedings against accused no.3, who was abroad at the time of detection. Finding no material connecting the petitioner to the offense of possessing foreign liquor, the Court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint insofar as it relates to him.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.73/08 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malappuram was quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

Parambattupalliyali Muhammedkutty Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3349 of 2008() ------------------------CP.73/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM CRIME NO.636/05 OF THE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION. ....................

¶6

PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO 3

¶7

¶8

PARAMBATTUPALLIYALI MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. MOOSA HAJI, SAFA MANZIL, KANJIRAPARAMBU, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS: STATE

¶11

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION- THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOHI -31

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R. BASANT, J.

¶16

------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3349 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2008

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner faces indictment as the 3^rd accused in a prosecution under Sec.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that 50 litres of Foreign Made Foreign Liquor was found available in a building at the time of detection of the offence on 3/11/05. On that day, the petitioner/A3 was not available in India and was employed abroad. His brother-in-law/A1 was admittedly keeping possession and managing the property which belongs to the petitioner on the strength of an instrument of Power-ofAttorney. It is in such building that the contraband article – 50 litres of FMFL was found available. Accused 1 and 2 were also not available at the scene and they were later arrested. The petitioner/A3 was arrayed as an accused as the person

¶20

Crl.M.C. No. 3349 of 2008 -: 2 :-

¶21

owning the premises. It was alleged that A1 and A2 were carrying on the objectionable culpable activity at the instance of and on behalf of the petitioner/A3.

¶22

The petitioner had come to this Court seeking anticipatory bail and by order dated 19/3/08 in B.A.No.1775/08, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner. Subsequently final report has been filed. The petitioner has been arrayed as the 3^rd accused.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no semblance of material which even remotely or fancifully indicate the culpability of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it would be a traversity of justice to compel the petitioner to face the ordeal of trial. The interests of justice demand that the petitioner should not be compelled to suffer the trauma and tedium of appearing before the criminal court and claiming premature termination of the proceedings by discharge, submits the learned counsel.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take instructions. The learned Public Prosecutor, after perusing the Case Diary, submits that except that the petitioner is the owner of the building, there is no semblance of material to connect the petitioner, who was abroad at the relevant time in connection

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 3349 of 2008 -: 3 :-

¶26

with his employment, with the crime alleged. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this is an eminently fit case where the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner.

¶27

In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order.

¶28

In the result:

¶29

(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶30

(b) C.P.No.73/08 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram, (Crime No.636/05 of the Kondotty Police Station) in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Crl.M.C. No. 3349 of 2008 -: 4 :-

Parambattupalliyali Muhammedkutty v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parambattupalliyali Muhammedkutty v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Computer Shack Vs M/S.Unique Info Technologies

A. Ahammed Vs North Malabar General Marketing & Financ

T.M.Azeez Vs Karunakaran

T.P.Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

Francis T.Chacko Vs Anna Magie and Others

A.N.Ummer Vs Station House Officer,Adhur Police