Disposed

P.J.Johnson v. the S.I. of Police, Ernakulam Town North

Kerala HC12 Nov 2010Crl.MC/2208/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a case for illegal possession of fireworks. The court noted the petitioner's licence dispute but did not adjudicate the merits, instead granting liberty to raise contentions for discharge before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to raise contentions and seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC from the Magistrate.

P.J.Johnson Vs the S.I. of Police, Ernakulam Town North — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 2208 of 2010(E)

¶5

------------------------------------(CRIME NO.1066/2010 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION)

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

----------------------------------

¶8

P.J.JOHNSON, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.V.JOSEPH, POOTHULLIL HOUSE, CITIZEN 4TH CROSS LINE, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, R2 BY SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶19

-------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.2208 OF 2010

¶20

--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2010.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner the accused in Crime No.1066 of 2010 of Ernakulam Police Station filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that ingredients of the offence is not attracted at all and therefore the same is to be quashed.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶24

Prosecution case is that petitioner had in his shop room, 88.5 kgs. of country made fireworks and 27 kgs. of factory made fireworks and as per the licence, petitioner is entitled to keep in possession for sale only 50 kgs. of explosives. The case was registered under Section 9(B)(I) of Explosive Act and Rules 119, 126 of Explosive Rules,1983. Petitioner would contend that, under Sub Rule 9 of Rule 9, petitioner who is conducting a shop of amorces and sparklers, is entitled to keep in possession and sale, fire works not exceeding 100 kgs. and as the quantity of fire works seized was less than 100 kgs., no offence was committed. The learned counsel would argue that petitioner was granted a

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C No.2208 OF 2010

¶27

licence under Explosive Rules, 1983, and it was being renewed from time to time and when the licence is renewed in 2010 evidenced by Annexure-A2 proceedings, the licence should have been issued in form LD-V as provided under Explosive Rules 2008 which under Condition No.(b), would enable the petitioner to possess and sell from a shop at any one time not more than 100 Kgs. of manufactured fire works of Class VII, Devision II and Sub Division II and 500 Kgs. of Chinese crackers and in such circumstances, the Crime registered for possession of the fire works of only 88 Kgs. is illegal and it is to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be permitted to raise all these contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

Petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions raised herein and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure from the learned Magistrate.

¶29

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶30

mns

P.J.Johnson v. the S.I. of Police, Ernakulam Town North

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Johnson v. the S.I. of Police, Ernakulam Town North

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

Dr.Binoy Idicula Babu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs T.a.Usman and Another

Usha v. and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

Suresh Babu Vs Prajeesh and Others

Smruthy Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala