IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 132 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------ (CC.NO.948/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, N.PARAVUR) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SHAJITH,S/O.AYYAPPAN,AGED 25 YEARS, CHILLIKKAL HOUSE,MUNAMBOM,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. NAZAR.S.U. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.132 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to have Annexure A3 Charge Sheet and all further proceedings in C.C No.948/2009 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur quashed. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.150/2003 on Munambam Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 323, 506(1) r/w 149 IPC and Section 2(1)(e) r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegation is that a group of 20 persons including the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him. Petitioner says that the allegations are totally false and he is falsely implicated. He claims to be innocent. 3. Since the petitioner had to go abroad, he could not stand trial along with other accused persons. Case against him was split up and it is pending as C.C No.948/2009. Petitioner points out that in the trial, except accused No.6, other accused persons have been acquitted. That judgment is produced as Crl.M.C No.132 OF 2010 Page numbers Annexure A1. It is pointed out that the court after trial of the other accused persons has found that the 1st and 6th accused alone have committed offensive acts and they are liable for their individual acts. As accused No.1 absconded, conviction was confined to the 6th accused alone. There is a finding by the court below that the 6th accused is guilty of only offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506(1) IPC. It has been found that offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC against the accused persons are not made out. 4. Since the 6th accused found guilty merely because there is finding against the other accused persons, it does not mean that the petitioner can be given the benefit of that judgment. It may not be possible to say now that there is no evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to extend the benefit of the decisions “Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab” (2008(3) KLT 19 SC) and “Manoj Sharma v State” (2008(4) KLT 417). 5. However it is made clear that if the petitioner surrender before the court below and moves an application for discharge pointing out that it has already been found by the court below that offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, Crl.M.C No.132 OF 2010 Page numbers 149 and 323 IPC are not made out and it will be considered and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. On surrender, if the petitioner files an application for bail, after giving notice to the learned Public Prosecutor, the court below shall consider the application for bail on the same day itself and pass orders in accordance with law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv