Dismissed

Shajahan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2013Crl.MC/363/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet under the Essential Commodities Act. The court held that the delay in filing the FIR and procedural gaps did not warrant High Court interference, allowing the accused to challenge these defects before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the charge sheet and further proceedings in CC No.24/11 is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to raise contentions before the trial court.

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 363 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.24/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶7

CRIME NO. 1647/2010 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

SHAJAHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, RESIDING AT VIJAYAMANGALATHU, VADAKKUNTHALA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

CRMC.NO.363/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY RESPONDENT CRIME NO.1647/2010 OF THE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶20

ANNEX.2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1647/2010 OF THE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2013

¶27

------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2013.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.24/11 pending before the court of Judicial First Class MagistrateKarunagappally. According to the petitioner, the police conducted the investigation in Crime No.1647/10 of Karunagappally police station, in total violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Rationing Order and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. According to the petitioner, he was not given any notice and no document is produced to show the seizure of the contraband article and also no independent witness was questioned at the time of the alleged seizure etc. Therefore, the above petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C.No.24/11 pending before the above court.

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2013

¶32

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

As directed by this Court, the respondent-State

¶34

has filed a statement dated 22.2.2013 in the above M.C.

¶35

The allegation against the petitioner is that the Taluk Supply Officer, Karunagappally, has seized 100 kgs. of Rationed rice from the shop, namely Koyakutty & Sons, owned by the petitioner, on 8.4.2008. According to the prosecution, the above act on the part of the petitioner was against S.5(A) of the Kerala Rationing Order and sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further stated in paragraph 2 of the statement that, the District Collector, Kollam, has issued notice to the petitioner on 24.6.2008 seeking his explanation and according to the respondent, though the petitioner received the notice on 8.7.2008, there was no appearance from the side of the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Collector ordered to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Supply

¶36

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2013

¶38

Officer, instructed the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally, vide Letter No. CS 10-1689/08 dated 23.7.2010 and thus FIR in Crime No.1647/10 for the offence under sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and section 5(A) of the Kerala Rationing Order was registered on 20.8.2010 and thereafter investigation was undertaken, through which it was found that the petitioner unlawfully stored the Government subsidized rationed rice with the intention of making excess profit. Thus, accordingly, the charge sheet was submitted in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, on 30.10.2010.

¶39

The case of the counsel for the petitioner is that even though the alleged seizure was taken place on 8.4.2008, FIR was filed only on 20.8.2010, ie., there is more than 2 years delay. It is also the contention of the counsel that no seizure mahazar was prepared, since in Annexure I charge sheet, there is no reference to any mahazar prepared or produced before the court. It is also the case

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2013

¶42

of the counsel that no independent witness was examined. However, in paragraph 3 of the statement, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has no license or authorisation to stock rationed rice in his shop. Therefore, the Taluk Supply Officer and the Rationing Inspector jointly prepared mahazar from the SoC on the same day, ie., on 8.4.2008 and the petitioner has also signed and received the copy of the mahazar with date.

¶43

It is true that in Annexure 1 charge sheet, there is no reference to preparation of any mahazar. But it is stated that there exists a jointly prepared mahazar from the SoC. With regard to the delay, it appears to me that, notice was issued to the petitioner, as claimed by the respondent, on 24.6.2008 and the notice was received by the petitioner on 8.4.2008. According to the counsel, even though such notice was issued and if the petitioner received such notice, probably the same might have issued after filing the present M.C. In the light of the disputed facts about the delay and the seizure etc., this Court will

¶44

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2013

¶46

not be justified in interfering with the procedure pending against the petitioner in the trial court and therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to take all these contentions before the trial court at appropriate stage and to convince the court below that no charge would lie against him in the light of the materials and evidence on record.

¶47

Subject to the above observation, this M.C. is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶49

ami/

¶50

//True copy//

¶51

P.A. to Judge

Shajahan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajahan 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

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Libi Vs Jayan

Usha George Vs State of Kerala

Nazer Vs Ashokkumar

P.Rahim Vs E.P.Jayarajan

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala