Quashed

V.Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2017Crl.MC/1472/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter, petitioners accused under the Abkari Act sought quashing of the final report filed by non-Abkari officers. The court quashed the charges as the investigation officers lacked jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Abkari Act and discharged the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C., relying on Sujith V. State of Kerala.

What did the court decide?

The charge framed by the court below stands quashed and the petitioners are discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

V.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/26TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1472 of 2017 ()

¶6

SC 73/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK NO.I, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO. 311/2000 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2:

¶8

1. V.VIJAYAN

¶9

AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN (LATE), KARALIKUZHIYIL (SHILPA) HOUSE, MANNADI P.O., KADAMBANADU VILLGE, PATHANATHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. JINIL KUMAR @ JINI AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SUNDARAN, SANTHAVILASAM OLAYIL HOUSE, PALACE WARD, THEVALLIKARA, KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1472 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

A PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 311/2000 FILED BEFORE THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR.

¶20

B PHOTOCOY OF THE DECISION, REPORTED IN 2016(3) KHC 823 SUJITH VS. STATE OF KERALA.

¶21

C PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.2.2017 IN CRL.A NO. 1073/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶27

-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1472 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2017

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The petitioners are accused in S.C.No.73/2005 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are the offences punishable under Sections 55(a), (b), (h), (i) and 57of the AbkariAct.

¶31

The prosecution case can be briefly stated as follows:

¶32

The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Thiruvananthapuram and party conducted a search in the house of the first accused on 17.05.2000. 70 jerry cans containing 34 litres each of spirit were found kept in a building near to the residential building of the first accused. The building, where the spirit was found, stands in the name of the third accused. On getting information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), the Sub Inspector of Police, Adoor and party reached there and seized the contraband under a mahazar. Thereafter,

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.1472 of 2017

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

he returned to the Police Station and registered Crime No.311/2000 of that Police Station against the first accused for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. After completing the investigation, the final report against the first accused was filed by the Police under Section 55(a) and (h) of the Abkari Act. Subsequently, the Circle Inspector of Police, Adoor submitted an application under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking for further investigation. Permission was granted by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter further investigation was conducted by a Special Investigation Team for spirit smuggling cases, headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Alappuzha. The Special Investigation Team, during the course of investigation, arrested the second accused and produced him before the court. Thereafter, other accused persons were added as the accused. The Special Investigation Team, after completing the investigation,

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.1472 of 2017

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

submitted the final report before the court.

¶39

The above Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking for quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the final report was filed by the Officer, who was not an Abkari Officer.

¶40

It is borne out from the final report that the final report was filed by Sri.Sasidharan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Alappuzha, who is not an Abkari Officer. He also conducted some part of the investigation. Some part of the investigation was conducted by Sri.Ramachandran, who was also a Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Kottayam. This court as per order in Sujith V. State of Kerala [2016(3) KHC 823] discharged accused No.3 in the crime finding that the Officer, who filed the final report was not an Abkari Officer appointed under Section 4 of the Abkari Act and hence he was not a competent Abkari Officer for conducting investigation and submitting final report before the court. The petitioner

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.1472 of 2017

¶42

-: 4 :-

¶43

herein filed Crl.M.A.No.3934/2017 quashing the court charge framed against petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶44

In this case, since the investigation was conducted by CW61 and CW62, who were not Abkari Officers under the Abkari Act, the investigation conducted by CW61 and CW62 was without jurisdiction and authorization and hence the court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences on the strength of the final report filed by CW62.

¶45

Since the final report was filed by an Officer, who was not an Abkari Officer competent to file the final report, the accused is entitled to be discharged. Therefore, the charged framed against the petitioners by the court below was without jurisdiction and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the charge framed by the court below against them is liable to be quashed.

¶46

In the result, the charge framed by the court

¶47

Crl.M.C. No.1472 of 2017

¶48

-: 5 :-

¶49

below against the petitioners stands quashed and the petitioners stand discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶50

This Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶53

STK

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

V.Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vijayan 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

Ansar M. Vs State of Kerala

Shine Sivan Vs the State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman Khan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala