Allowed

Abdul Gafoor v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2024Crl.MC/658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second accused in a hoarded-ration-rice case sought quashing after the first accused was acquitted in an identical trial. The court found the seizure-mahazar witness denied her signature, no witness proved the rice was ration rice, and no evidence showed its source, so continuing the prosecution served no purpose and proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.29/2018 before JFMC Nilambur quashed.

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024

¶4

CRIME NO.754/2010 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 29/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, NILAMBUR

¶5

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶6

ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, VALLIKKADAN HOUSE,
KARUKAMANNA, PULLIPPADAM PO,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 676 542.
BY ADVS.
T.K.AJITH KUMAR
VARNIBHA.T
HARITHA S.

¶7

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶8

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

¶9

SRI. T.R. RANJITH (PP)
SMT.HARITHA

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024

¶12

¶13

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶14

......….............................................

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.658 of 2024

¶16

…................................................

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.29/2018 on the files of

¶20

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, arising out of Crime No.754/2010 of Nilambur Police Station. Originally, there were three accused in the aforesaid crime. Initially, the case was registered as C.C.No.44/2011, wherein the petitioner herein was arrayed as the 3^rd accused. Since petitioner absconded, the case against the first accused in C.C.No.44/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, proceeded, and

¶21

by judgment dated 18.02.2016, the said accused was acquitted. Petitioner seeks the benefit of the acquittal of the first accused.

¶22

The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 25.08.2010, the accused was found to have hoarded 2527 Kgs. of rice in 27 plastic sacks and 24 jute sacks in the building taken on rent by the first accused and committed the offences punishable under

¶23

Section 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order 1996, r/w Sections 3

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024

¶25

¶26

and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶27

Since two of the accused had absconded, the case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.213/2016. In the meantime, petitioner once again absconded, and therefore, the case against him was split up and later refiled as C.C.No.29/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur.

¶28

Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a reading of Annexure-3 judgment will reveal that the very substratum of the prosecution case has eroded, and therefore, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution against the petitioner.

¶29

Sri.T.R.Ranjith, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the contentions and submitted that evidence can be adduced independently, including all what was adduced in C.C.No.44/2011, and therefore, no cause arises for interfering with the prosecution.

¶30

On a perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.44/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, this Court noticed that the witness to the seizure mahazar had, while she

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024

¶32

¶33

was examined as PW3 denied her signature in the mahazar. The Investigating Officer, when examined as PW10, deposed that no one had certified that the rice sold by the accused was ration rice. The trial court had also come to the conclusion that there was no evidence from whom or from where the rice had been procured by the accused. None of the witnesses examined in the said case supported the prosecution case. Nature of allegations against the petitioner as well as the other accused, are the same and the primary ingredient to be proved is that the seized rice was ration rice. Without any evidence to show from whom and from where the rice was procured and without any certificate or material to show that the rice that was seized by the Investigating Officer was ration rice, the offence against the petitioner and other accused cannot be made out. It is evident

¶34

from a reading of the judgment in Annexuer-3 that the substratum of the prosecution case, even as against the petitioner, has been destroyed.

¶35

In view of the above, no purpose would be achieved in

¶36

continuing the prosecution case against the petitioner.

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024

¶38

¶39

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in

¶40

C.C.No.29/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶41

Court, Nilambur, is hereby quashed.

¶42

The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.

¶43

sd/-

¶44

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

AMV/15/02/2024

¶46

CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 658/2024

¶49

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶50

`ANNEXURE -1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`FIR DATED 19.10.2010 IN`
	`CRIME NO. 754` `NILAMBUR POLICE S`	`/2010 REGISTERED AT` `TATION.`
`ANNEXURE 2`	`CERTIFIED COPY O`	`F THE FINAL REPORT IN`
	`CRIME NO. 754/20` `STATION.`	`10 OF NILAMBUR POLICE`
`ANNEXURE -3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 18.2.2016`	`JUDGMENT IN C.C.44/2011` `ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL`
	`FIRST-CLASS MA` `NILAMBUR.`	`GISTRATE'S COURT AT`
`ANNEXURE 4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW1 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW2 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW3 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW4 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW5 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW6 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `READABLE COPY.`	`DEPOSITION OF PW7 WITH`
`ANNEXURE -11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`DEPOSITION OF PW8.`
`ANNEXURE -12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`DEPOSITION OF PW9.`
`ANNEXURE -13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`DEPOSITION OF PW10.`

¶51

TRUE COPY

Abdul Gafoor v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Gafoor 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

Rosy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Dilshad Ali Vs State of Kerala

Rameez K.T. Vs State of Kerala

Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Chandran Vs State of Kerala