Allowed

Mani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4943/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash prosecution proceedings. Relying on a prior acquittal where the trial court found evidence miserably inadequate and jurisdictional defects, this High Court held that quashing the current proceedings is necessary to prevent waste of judicial time.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A (final report) and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners pending as S.C. No. 471 of 2015 are quashed.

Mani Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4943 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 471/2015 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR DATED

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 1/2009 of J.M.F.C. - I, NORTH PARAVUR DATED CRIME NO. 229/2007 OF MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 8:

¶9

MANI,AGED 59 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.THANKAPPA GOUNDER,SATHI MAIN ROAD, DETTAIPALAYAM DESOM,METTUPALAYAM TALUK,COIMBATORE DISTRICT,

¶11

TAMILNADU.

¶12

JOSSY,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O DEVASSI,NADACKAL HOUSE,MUTTAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶17

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CONTD...

¶20

:2:

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 4943 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.229/2007 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION,FILED BEFORE THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NORTH PARAVUR.

¶24

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2016 IN SC.535/2011 PASSED BY THE ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE,NORTH PARAVUR

¶25

ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.6.2016 IN CRL.R.P.3152/2009 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 4943 of 2016

¶33

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

¶34

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.

¶37

No. 471 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions

¶38

Court-II, North Paravur. The aforesaid case has originated from Crime No. 229 of 2007 of Munambam Police Station.

¶39

The prosecution allegation is that, at the instance of the 7^th accused, an Abkari Contractor, 66 cans containing 2310 litres of spirit were brought in a lorry bearing registration No. KL-01-AG-3733 owned by the 8^th accused. The said lorry displayed a fake registration No. KL-57-Z-1246 and the prosecution alleges that the contraband was transported for the purpose of sale through the toddy shops in the Njarakkal Excise Range run by the 7^th accused .

¶40

3.Final report was laid in the aforesaid case arraying 8 persons as the accused, the petitioners being accused Nos.

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 4943 of 2016

¶42

¶43

2 and 8.

¶44

4.The petitioners herein and also the 1^st accused did not appear before the Sessions Court and face trial. The case against them were split up and re-filed. The case was proceeded with and by Annexure B judgment dated 31.03.2016, they were found not guilty of the offences and were acquitted of all charges.

¶45

5.It is in the above backdrop that this petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the very edifice of the prosecution case has been shattered.

¶46

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. I have gone through Annexure-A final report and Annexure-B judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

¶47

7.It is apparent from Annexure-B that, as many as 14 witnesses were examined before the court. The learned

¶48

Crl.M.C. No. 4943 of 2016 3

¶49

Assistant Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the evidence let in by the prosecution was miserably inadequate to connect the accused with the offence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that the material objects, specimen impression of seal, as well as forwarding note were kept away from the Court. This according to the Court below was fatal enough to reject the prosecution case. Furthermore, the Court below took note of the decision of this Court in Sasikumar v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KHC 731] wherein it was held that the cognizance taken by the Court below was vitiated as PW13, the investigating officer, had no jurisdiction to investigate and submit final report before Court. In the instant case, the officer was not authorised to act as an Abkari Officer having jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the Circle office where the offence was

¶50

Crl.M.C. No. 4943 of 2016

¶51

¶52

committed. The learned Public prosecutor on instructions submitted that no appeal has been preferred against the acquittal. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in judgement dated 13.6.2016 in Crl. R.P. No. 3152 of 2009, the copy of which has been produced as AnnexureC .

¶53

8.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶54

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

¶55

Crl.M.C. No. 4943 of 2016

¶56

¶57

petitioner now pending as S.C. No 471 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court – II, North Paravur are

¶58

quashed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶61

SKS

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

George Vs State

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Benny Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu Vs the State of Kerala

Prakash Panavelil Vs State of Kerala