Allowed¶31

Rahul Sidharth, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2025Crl.MC/2050/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC (Ernakulam), CRL.MC 2050/2021, 2025:KER:18543, decided 05.03.2025 by Justice V.G. Arun: quashes final report in Crime No.312/2005 (Sooranadu PS; Ss.409 & 420 r/w 34 IPC; alleged duplicate-gold pledge obtaining Rs.4,64,291.50/-) and all further proceedings in C.C.No.413/2020 against the 9th accused, relying on the co-accused acquittal judgment (Annexure A9, CC No.219/2006) in which PW7 the bank appraiser had not appraised the gold at the bank and could not identify it due to lapse of time, leaving no evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Disposition: allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.312/2005 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.413/2020 against the petitioner. ¶31

Rahul Sidharth, Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.312/2005 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.413/2020 against the petitioner.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner (9th accused) in C.C.No.413/2020 arising from Crime No.312/2005 should be quashed on the strength of the acquittal of his co-accused in CC No.219/2006. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; the Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.312/2005 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam District and all further proceedings in C.C No.413/2020 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Temporary, Sasthamcotta as against the petitioner are quashed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of Annexure A9 judgment shows that PW7, the bank's appraiser, had not appraised the gold when it was presented at the bank and inspected it only at the Police Station, and was unable to identify the gold due to lapse of time; the court below therefore rightly held that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

¶29

Key takeaways

No purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, except wastage of valuable judicial time.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allowed. High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (V.G. Arun, J.), 05.03.2025, in CRL.MC No. 2050 of 2021 (neutral citation 2025:KER:18543). The petitioner, 9th accused in Crime No.312/2005 of Sooranadu Police Station registered under Sections 409 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC (alleged pledge of duplicate gold in the Ambalathumbhagam Service Co-operative Bank while the 1st accused was counter executive, obtaining Rs.4,64,291.50/-), faced proceedings in C.C.No.413/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Temporary, Sasthamcotta, the case having been originally taken on file as CC No.219/2006, all co-accused tried and acquitted per Annexure A9 judgment, and the case against the absenting petitioner split up as C.C.No.205/2018 and renumbered C.C.No.413/2020. Perusing Annexure A9, the Court found that PW7, the bank's appraiser, had not appraised the gold when presented at the bank, inspected it only at the Police Station, and was unable to identify the gold due to lapse of time, on which basis the court below had rightly held there was no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Continuing the proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose except wastage of valuable judicial time; accordingly the Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.312/2005 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.413/2020 against the petitioner stand quashed.

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 2050 OF 2021 1

¶2

2025:KER:18543

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 2050 OF 2021

¶8

CRIME NO.312/2005 OF Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.413 OF 2020

¶10

OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA

¶11

PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED:

¶12

RAHUL SIDHARTH,
AGED 31 YEARS

¶13

S/O. SIDHARTHAN, SIDHARTH BHAVANAM, EDAKKAD MURI,
PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM 690
520.

¶14

BY ADVS.
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
C.P.ANIL RAJ

¶15

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶17

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SOORANAD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM 690 520.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 2050 OF 2021 2

¶20

 2025:KER:18543

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the 9^th accused in Crime No.312/2005 of the Sooranadu Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, now pending as CC No.413/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Temporary, Sasthamcotta. The crime is registered on the allegation that, while the 1^st accused was working as counter executive in the Ambalathumbhagam Service Co-operative Bank, the other accused pledged duplicate gold in the bank and wrongfully obtained an amount of Rs.4,64,291.50/-.

¶23

On filing of final report, the case was taken on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta as CC No.219/2006. All other accused, except the petitioner, participated in the trial and were acquitted as per Annexure A9 judgment. The petitioner having failed to appear in court, the case against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.205/2018. Later the case was renumbered as C.C.No.413/2020. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the strength of the judgment of acquittal rendered in the case of his co-accused.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by reason of the findings in Annexure A9 judgment, the

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 2050 OF 2021 3

¶26

2025:KER:18543 substratum of the prosecution case is lost. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise. In support of the argument, reference is made to Paragraph 10 of Annexure A9 judgment.

¶27

I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶28

A perusal of Annexure A9 judgment shows that,

¶29

in order to prove the common intention among the accused to cheat the service co-operative bank by pledging spurious gold ornaments, prosecution examined the appraiser of the bank as PW7. The deposition of PW7 is that he had not appraised the gold when it was presented at the bank and inspected it only at the Police Station. PW7 also deposed that he is unable to identify the gold due to lapse of time. Therefore, the court below rightly held that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

¶30

Being so, no purpose is going to be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, except wastage of valuable judicial time.

¶31

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.312/2005 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam District and all further proceedings in C.C No.413/2020 of the Judicial Magistrate of First

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 2050 OF 2021 4

¶33

2025:KER:18543 Class-Temporary, Sasthamcotta as against the petitioner is

¶34

quashed.

¶35

sd/

¶36

V.G.ARUN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

jm/

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 2050 OF 2021 5

¶40

 2025:KER:18543

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2050/2021

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 30.11.2005 IN
CRIME NO. 312/2005 OF SOORANAD POLICE
STATION.

¶44

`ANNEXURE A2`	`CERTIFIED COPY O` `1.12.2005 IN CRI`	`F FINAL REPORT DATED` `ME NO. 312/2005.`
`ANNEXURE A3`	`COPY OF DEPOSITI` `BY PW1 IN CC NO.`	`ON DATED 5.5.2011 GIVEN` `219/2006.`
`ANNEXURE A4`	`COPY OF DEPOSITI` `BY PW3 IN CC NO.`	`ON DATED 26.12.2013 GIVEN` `219/2006.`
`ANNEXURE A5`	`COPY OF DEPOSITI` `BY PW4 IN CC NO.`	`ON DATED 26.12.2013 GIVEN` `219/2006.`
`ANNEXURE A6`	`COPY OF DEPOSITI` `BY PW5 IN CC NO.`	`ON DATED 22.1.2014 GIVEN` `219/2006.`
`ANNEXURE A7`	`COPY OF DEPOSITI` `BY PW6 IN CC NO.`	`ON DATED 4.4.2014 GIVEN` `219/2006.`
`ANNEXURE A8`	`COPY OF DEPOSITI` `BY PW7 IN CC NO.`	`ON DATED 12.2.2015 GIVEN` `219/2006.`
`ANNEXURE A9`	`COPY OF JUDGMENT` `IN CC NO. 219/20`	`DATED 26.4.2018 PASSED` `06.`
`ANNEXURE A10`	`COPY OF PROCEEDI` `OBTAINED FROM E-`	`NGS IN CC NO. 413/2020` `COURT SERVICES.`

Rahul Sidharth, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sidharth, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghav Nair, Vs the State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar L S Vs George Paulose

M. Shajideen, Vs K.M. Ashraf

A.C.Baby, Vs State of Kerala

The Bishop House Foundation No. 88, Vs K. Bovas

Rasheed M., Vs State of Kerala