Allowed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2023Crl.MC/1804/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an accused person after his co-accused was acquitted. The trial court acquitted the co-accused due to fundamental defects in investigating agency's failure to produce contraband and prepare a certified inventory as mandated by law.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.852 of 2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad are quashed.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1804 OF 2023

¶6

IN SC 852/2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SURESH AGED 50 YEARS KALATHIL VEETIL HOUSE PLAKKATTIRI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 686673

¶9

BY ADV. IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶12

BY ADV. RENJITH GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.M.C.NO.1804 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2023

¶18

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.852 of 2020

¶19

on the files of Additional Session Court-IV, Palakkad. The case originated from Crime No.08 of 2008 registered at the Excise Range Office, Thrithala against the petitioner and another, alleging commission of offence under Sections 55(a), 55(i) and 63 of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that, at about 6.am on 18.05.2008, the Excise party conducted a search in the building bearing No.VI/27 in Nagalassery Panchayath and seized 775 litres of Toddy from the building and a jeep parked in front of the building. At the time of search and seizure, two persons who were present in the premises ran away. On enquiry it was revealed that the building belongs to the petitioner and therefore he was arrayed as the 1^st accused and the owner of the jeep, as the 2^nd accused.

¶21

¶22

CRL.M.C.NO.1804 OF 2023

¶23

The petitioner was arrested during the crime stage

¶24

and released on bail. He appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate during the committal stage, but failed to appear before the Sessions Court after the case was committed and numbered as S.C.No.397 of 2012. The 2^nd accused faced trial before the Sessions Court and was acquitted by Annexure-A5 judgment. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, relying on the acquittal of the 2^nd accused.

¶25

Heard, Adv. Ieans. C. Chamakkala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Adv. Renjith George, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the relevant paragraphs of Annexure-A5 judgment to contend that acquittal of the petitioner is inevitable and therefore the further proceedings, including trial, will be sheer wastage of valuable time of the court and would amount to an abuse of process. It is pointed out that, one of the reasons for acquitting the

¶27

¶28

CRL.M.C.NO.1804 OF 2023

¶29

2^nd accused is that the contraband was neither produced before the court nor an inventory prepared and certified as mandated under Section 53A of the Abkari Act. The trial court also found that the 2^nd accused was not identified at the crime stage or even during the course of trial.

¶30

Having heard the learned Counsel and having gone through the materials available, as also Annexure-A5 judgment, I find substantial merit in the contention that, further proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process, insofar as the fundamental defect of the investigating agency in having failed to produce the contraband in court or to prepare an inventory of the contraband and get it certified as mandated under Section 53A of the Act, cannot be corrected. Further, the learned Sessions Judge also found there, evidence regarding identification of accused was absent.

¶31

For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further

¶32

CRL.M.C.NO.1804 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.852 of 2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV,

Palakkad is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/20-3

CRL.M.C.NO.1804 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1804/2023

¶43

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE:

¶44

ANNEXURE A1	COPY OF SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO. 08/2008 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THRITHALA
ANNEXURE A2	COPY OF CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CRIME NO. 08/2008 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THRITHALA
ANNEXURE A3	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C NO.397/2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT- IV, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE A4	THE COPY OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF PW`S 1 TO 10 IN S.C NO.397/2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE A5	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C 397/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT- IV, PALAKKAD

¶45

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURE: NIL

¶46

TRUE COPY

¶47

P.A. TO JUDGE

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nithin K.Unni Vs State of Kerala

G. Muraleedharan Vs Jinu Ummen

Deen Johns V.S. Vs State of Kerala

Dameej Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh .P Vs State of Kerala