Quashed

Shaiju N v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2023Crl.MC/1167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the fourth accused in a case involving explosives. The court held that uncontroverted allegations did not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner, applying principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in SC No.60 of 2023 are quashed.

Shaiju N Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE10THDAYOFJULY2023/19THASHADHA,1945

¶5

CRL.MCNO.1167OF2023

¶6

SC 60/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI CRIME NO.71/2021 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶8

SHAIJUN

¶9

AGED29YEARS

¶10

S/O.KOPLINARIKKODAN,MOOCHIKUNDUHOUSE,
ARIMBRAP.O.,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN-673638

¶11

BYADVBABUS.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI,PIN-682031

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676541

¶17

SRI.MPPRASHANTH,PUBLICPROSECUTOR

¶18

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
10.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C No.1167 of 2023

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in SC No.60/2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court III, Manjeri, insofar as it concerns the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as the 4th accused in the said case.

¶23

Annexure C final report would disclose that the offence alleged against the accused are under Sections 286 r/w 34 of the IPC and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908, and Section 9B(1) of the Explosives Act. The prosecution allegation is that on 21.04.2021 at about 6.30 pm, based on source information, the Detecting officer, along with his party, went to the quarry run by a certain Kunnummal Abdulla. It is alleged that on reaching the quarry, the petitioner was found standing near an earth mover. The officer enquired with the petitioner herein as to where the explosives are stored. On seeing the police personnel, two persons are alleged to have taken to their heels in a car bearing registration No.KL 10 AU 798. The police officer inspected a room and found explosives packed therein. A search list was prepared, and thereafter Crime No.71 of 2021

¶24

Crl.M.C No.1167 of 2023

¶25

¶26

was registered.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the only allegation is that he was found standing inside the quarry. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is the owner of the earthmover, which was parked therein. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner had anything to do with the running of the quarry or that any explosive substance was seized from the vehicle. According to the learned counsel, the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act would be attracted only when there are materials to suggest that the individual concerned had knowingly possessed any explosive substance. He would further point out that there is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner had carried out any act in contravention of the Explosive Rules. Finally, the learned counsel would refer to Annexure-B order by which this Court had directed the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle on conditions.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, fairly submitted that insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, there is no assertion in the final report that he has any connection with the storing of explosives in the quarry.

¶29

Crl.M.C No.1167 of 2023

¶30

¶31

The accused is charged under Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 9B(1) of the Explosives Act, 1884. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act penalizes the making or possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances. It states that anyone who makes or knowingly possesses an explosive substance under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they are not making or possessing it for a lawful purpose shall be punished, unless they can show that they made or possessed it for a lawful purpose. The final report does not disclose any allegation that the petitioner violated Section 5 of the Act, 1908. Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, deals with the punishment of certain offenses. Only individuals who manufacture, possess, or act in contravention of notification in contravention of the rules made under Section 5 can be punished under this provision. Section 286 of the IPC deals with negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner has committed any negligent act with respect to explosive substances. The only allegation against the petitioner is that his vehicles were in the quarry. There is no other allegation to link the petitioner to the offenses alleged.

¶32

Having considered the facts of the instant case, in the light of the

¶33

Crl.M.C No.1167 of 2023

¶34

¶35

principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal¹ , I am of the view that the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the charge and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court will be well justified in invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

¶36

All further proceedings as against the petitioner in SC No.60 of 2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri are quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶39

IAP

¶40

1 [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶41

Crl.M.C No.1167 of 2023

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1167/2023

¶44

PETITIONER’SANNEXURES:

¶45

AnnexureAATRUECOPYOFTHEF.I.R.INCRIME
NO.71/2021OFTHEEDAVANNAPOLICESTATION
DATED,21-4-2021
AnnexureBATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERIN
CRL.M.C.NO.2792/2021OFTHISHON'BLECOURT
DATED,23-6-2021
AnnexureCATRUECOPYOFTHEFINALREPORT/CHARGEIN
CRIMENO.71/2021OFTHEEDAVANNAPOLICE
STATION

Shaiju N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaiju N 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

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mathew, Vs A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish

Chemancheri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. (F 779) Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sha S Vs State of Kerala