Court quashed proceedings against the 2nd accused in CC 626/2008 under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, accepting the State's concession that the investigating officer lacked authorization.
Further proceedings in CC No. 626/2008 against all accused were quashed.
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. P.S.GOPINATHAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 348 of 2012 () ------------------------( IN CC.626/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOCHI)
PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED :
SANIL KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN RESIDING AT MAZHUVANCHERI HOUSE, PETTA POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682031
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM 682031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dlk
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
Crl.M.C.NO. 348 OF 2012
Dated this the 14th day of February,2012
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in CC No.626/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kochi alleging offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7A of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, seeks an order to quash the all further proceedings against him with a plea that the case was investigated and the final report was filed by an officer not authorised or empowered under Act. It is also pleaded that the proceedings against the 3rd accused was quashed by another learned judge by Annexure A3 order dated 11/07/2011 in Crl.M.C.No.4880/2008. It is seen that the public prosecutor conceded in that petition that the sub
Crl.M.C.NO. 348 OF 2012
2
inspector investigated the case and filed final report and that he was not authorised or empowered to investigate the case and therefore the investigation is without jurisdiction. In the above circumstance, all further proceedings against the 3rd accused was quashed. Now also, the learned Government Pleader would concede.
Having heard, I find no reason to have a divergent conclusion. Therefore this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in CC No.626/2008 as against all accused would stand quashed.
P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE
DSV/-
Crl.M.C.NO. 348 OF 2012 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the investigation was conducted by an unauthorized officer.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanil Kumar
The State of Kerala
P.S. Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
