Disposed
Nagarajan v. State of Kerala
Kerala HCCrl.MC/564/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 M.N.KRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 564 of 2009
------------------------------CP.1/2009 OF JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MANANTHAVADY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 3 & 4:
BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
Crl.M.C.No.564 of 2009
-----------------------------------------Dated, this the 13th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed to quash the final report in O.R.No.7 of 2007 of the Excise Range, Mananthawady which is pending trial as C.P.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthawady. Annexure A1 is the charge sheet and the present petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4. It is seen that about 350 litres of illicit spirit was being transported when the excise party intercepted and accused Nos.1 and 2 were caught hold of. It is also stated that accused Nos.3 and 4, the present petitioners, had made arrangements for the purchase of the spirit, and for the purpose of transporting they had abetted and aided the other accused. It is specifically stated in the charge that accused Nos.3 and 4 had made arrangements for transportation of the spirit by giving money and has helped and abetted accused Nos.1 and 2 and, therefore, Section 61 of the Abkari Act also will be attracted.
Crl.M.C.No.564 of 2009
2
on merits for the reason that I do not find any ground to quash the proceeding as such. But when the case is committed and it comes up before the Sessions Court, necessarily there has to be a hearing under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before framing of charge and certainly the petitioners will be entitled to raise the plea of discharge which the court has to consider on the materials available on record as contemplated under Section 227(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of
accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vns
Nagarajan
Viswanathan
State of Kerala
M.N. Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court