Dismissed

Varkey Goerge v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2012Crl.MC/2577/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed to quash proceedings in a liquor transportation case. The court held that it is not appropriate to decide on the merits solely based on a preliminary order and directed the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge for a discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Reserving petitioner's right to apply for discharge under Section 227 CrPC before the Sessions Court.

Varkey Goerge Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2577 of 2012 ()

¶6

-------------------------CP.NO.10/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

VARKEY GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, CHUDUKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR CHAKKULATHUKAVU, NEERETTUPURAM P.O., THALAVADY, KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

¶10

SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶15

2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,

¶16

ERNAKULAM EXCISE RANGE, KOCHI-682 018.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

CRMC.NO.2577/2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEX 1	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE DATED 6/8/2008
ANNEX II	COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER'S FIRM DATED 6/8/2008
ANNEX III	COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE WAREHOUSE MANAGER, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION DATED 15/10/2008
ANNEX IV	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3788/2007
ANNEX V	COPY OF THE TRANSPORT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM DATED 28/2/2011
ANNEX VI	COPY OF THE PERMIT FOR TRANSPORTING LIQUOR ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA DATED 01/3/2011
ANNEX VII	COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DATED 8/2/2011
ANNEX VIII	COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.65/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM AS C.P.NO.10/2011

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶29

----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2012

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petitioner is one among the accused (A1) in a pending case, which, after committal, it is stated, is now before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner and another, the accused in the above case, are prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 6, 10, 55(a) and 58 of the Abkari Act, read with Rule 3 of Liquor Transit Rules, on a report filed by the Excise Circle Inspector, Kochi. The case in hand involves transportation of foreign liquor from New Delhi to Kochi, which is alleged to have been carried out by the accused persons in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Liquor Transit Rules.

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2012

¶33

:: 2 ::

¶34

After registration of the crime on behalf of the Customs Department, an application was moved by an officer thereof to claim interim custody of the contraband seized in the case. Vide Annexure IV order this court has allowed that application, subject to certain conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner, adverting to the reasonings and observations made in Annexure IV order contended that the case proceeded against the petitioner now on the basis of the report laid by the Excise Inspector is nothing but an abuse of process of the court. A copy of the report produced in the case, which now, after committal, awaits further steps before the Sessions Judge, is produced as Annexure VIII.

¶35

Going through the contents of Annexure VIII report and also the list of documents produced with such report, I find, it will not be

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2012

¶37

:: 3 ::

¶38

appropriate for this court to take a decision solely on the basis of the observations in Annexure IV order that sufficient ground has not been made to proceed against the accused for any of the offences imputed. In case the petitioner has any sustainable ground to seek discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he can canvass the same before the Sessions Judge.

¶39

Reserving the petitioner's right to do so, petition is dismissed.

¶40

sk/-

¶41

//true copy//

Varkey Goerge v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varkey Goerge v. 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

Nujeeb Rahman Vs Rasnimol

Pradeepan Vs State of Kerala

Asharaf Backer Vs Central Bureau of Investigation/Acb

Jomon Cyriac Vs Anilkumar

Mohanan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Smikesh D Vs Sidhukkul Akbar