Dismissed

Vijayan @ Karate Vijayan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2012Crl.MC/342/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner challenged proceedings for liquor offences alleging false implication as a restaurant owner. The High Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding that ownership and complicity are matters of evidence to be investigated.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to appraise his defence before the Investigating Officer.

Vijayan @ Karate Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/28TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 342 of 2012 (C)

¶6

VARKALA EXCISE RANGE CRIME NO.98/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M.I, VARKALA.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

VIJAYAN @ KARATE VIJAYAN S/O.SREENIVASAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU NEAR GOVT.HOSPITAL VARKALA, MAITHANAM, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695022

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM -31

¶12

THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 342 of 2012 ©

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :-

¶18

ANNEX.A:THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN VARKALA EXCISE CR NO-98/2011

¶19

ANNEX.B:THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEAD MASTER OF SAINIK SCHOOL, KAZHAKOOTAM, MR.RISHI RAJ SINGH LT, COLONEL DTD 2/5/2005

¶20

ANNEX.C:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED MRS.GEETHA, THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.M.C.No. 342 OF 2012

¶28

-------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2012.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the second accused in Varkala Excise Range Crime No.98/2011 for offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of Abkari Act seeks to quash all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure A1 Crime and Occurrence

¶31

Report.

¶32

The brief facts of the case is that on 27-12-2011 at 8.45 PM, the Excise Inspector attached to Excise Range, Varkala detected out certain quantities of liquor from a restaurant by name "Funky Buddha Lounge Restaurant". The first accused is the alleged salesman in the above restaurant. The

¶33

Crl.M.C.No. 342 OF 2012 2

¶34

petitioner herein is alleged to be the owner of the restaurant. Admittedly, there was no licence for selling liquors in the restaurant. According to the petitioner, he is not the owner of the above restaurant. Therefore, he was falsely implicated. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Pleader would assert that the petitioner is the owner of the restaurant. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the restaurant or he is any way connected with the running of the restaurant is a matter to be investigated. At this stage this court cannot that too, without any relevant documents, come to a conclusion that the petitioner is no way connected with the restaurant. Complicity of the petitioner is a matter of evidence. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the investigation at this stage. This

¶35

Crl.M.C.No. 342 OF 2012 3

¶36

petition is devoid of merits.

¶37

In the result, this petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to appraise his defence before the Investigating Officer. In the event the petitioner is arrested, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the committal court so as to enable him to apply for bail, which the learned Magistrate shall dispose of on merits, preferably on the same day, provided due notice is given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶38

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶39

amk

Vijayan @ Karate Vijayan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan @ Karate Vijayan 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

Ali Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Y.Raju Vs State of Kerala

P.Manikantan Vs State of Kerala

Patric Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Jaseer K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sulaja Shibu Vs State of Kerala