Allowed

Peethambaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2018Crl.MC/6669/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an accused in a distillation of arrack case, challenged the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after another accused was acquitted on merits. The court held that the prosecution substratum was lost due to witness incompetence and hostility, equating it to the previous acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioner in the long-pending case was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Peethambaran Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No.6669 of 2018

¶6

LP 8/2006 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.247/2000 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:-

¶8

PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KALACHIRA HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDI, IDUKKI – 685 609.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:-

¶11

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDUKKI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU ( SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner herein is the original 2^nd accused in

¶16

Crime No.247/2000 of the Idukki Police Station,

¶17

registered under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari

¶18

Act. The prosecution case is that four persons, including the petitioner herein, were found distilling

¶19

Crl.MC.No.6669/2018

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

arrack at the property of the petitioner herein at

¶22

about 2 p.m. on 26.10.2000. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki. Nobody could be arrested by him on the spot, because, the four persons ran off and escaped from the scene of occurrence. The Sub Inspector seized the contraband articles as per a mahazar, and registered a crime. After investigation, he submitted final report against four persons, including the petitioner herein. The original 3^rd accused faced trial before learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in S.C.58/2009, and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 14.8.2009. The case against the other three, including the petitioner herein, was split up and refiled, and the case against

¶23

this petitioner stands tranferred to the Register of Long Pending Cases as L.P.8/2006. He now seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that the very substratum of

¶24

the prosecution case stands lost by the acquittal of the 2^nd accused on merits.

¶25

Annexure A2 is the copy of the judgment of the

¶26

trial court in S.C.58/2009. This judgment shows that

¶27

Crl.MC.No.6669/2018

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

the Sub Inspector, who detected the offence could not

¶30

identify the accused during trial, and he could not give the details of the detection, when examined in court. PW1 examined as independent witness turned hostile. PW2 is the Forest Range Officer, who issued the Ext.P2 certificate that the property, where the Sub Inspector made detection in this case, belongs to this petitioner. It is not known what is his competency to issue such a certificate. It is something to be certified by the revenue authorities.

¶31

PW4 examined in the trial court is the Sub

¶32

Inspector, who detected the offence. His evidence is that he found four persons distilling arrack, and on seeing the police party, they were ran off and escaped. He does not know the details of the persons, who ran off and escaped, and he had also not noticed the physical features of anybody, for a proper identification later. He does not explain how he identified the accused, or on what basis he submitted final report in court against the four accused. When cross examined by the defence, he fairly conceded that he arraigned four persons as accused on the basis of

¶33

Crl.MC.No.6669/2018

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

the details furnished by the others. It is not known, who these "others" are. The evidence given by PW1 is quite shabby, and it would not implicate anybody. The prosecution cannot, in any manner, improve the case as against the petitioner herein, if it goes to trial. PW4 cannot give any better evidence than what he stated in Annexure A2 case. It appears that the only material as against this petitioner is that the property, wherein detection was made by the Sub Inspector belongs to him. If at all the property belongs to him, that cannot be a ground to implicate him. There must be evidence to show that he was also found distilling arrack along with the others. The Sub Inspector is not in a position to give the details of the persons, who were found distilling arrack. I find that the very substratum of the prosecution case stands lost by the acquittal of the 2^nd accused. There is no doubt at all that continuance of the prosecution as against the petitioner herein will be a sheer waste of time.

¶36

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The

¶37

prosecution against the petitioner herein in Crime No.247/2000 of the Idukki Police Station, now pending

¶38

Crl.MC.No.6669/2018

¶39

-: 5 :-

¶40

in the Register of Long Pending Cases as L.P. No.8/2006 of the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Sd/P.UBAID

JUDGE

Jvt/2.11.2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :-

¶46

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.247/2000 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION.

¶47

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA IN SC NO.58/2009 DATED 14.8.2009.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

P.A. TO JUDGE

Peethambaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peethambaran 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

Anil Kumar Vs M/S. Flomic Freight Services Ltd.

Mathew Vs James Jacob

Abu Faizal Vs Nizarudeen

Kuttisankara Guptan Vs Sivasankaran

Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Rajendrakumar & Another Vs Sivan and Others