IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3250 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.589/2000 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO.201/00 OF THE PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BAPPICHI MUSTAFA, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. K.P. ERAMULLAN, BYATHANNUR, PALATHARA, P.O. VELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3250 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner earlier faced indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.120B and 395 IPC. The incident in that case took place on 14/8/99. Crime No.291/99 of the Payyannur Police Station was registered. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. The said case was tried by the Sessions Court as S.C.No.589/00 and the accused including the petitioner were acquitted. 2. In the course of investigation of Crime No.291/99 on 20/8/99, a fire arm was seized allegedly from the possession of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, it appears, thought that the allegation about the possession of fire arm could also be raised in Crime No.291/99. But when the final Crl.M.C. No. 3250 of 2008 -: 2 :- report reached the Prosecutor for advise and opinion, it was directed that the alleged possession of the fire arm which was recovered on 20/8/99 is unconnected with Crime No.291/99 and therefore a separate indictment must follow. When this was realised, an F.I.R. was registered on 9/6/00 explaining all the details. Investigation continued in that crime which was registered as Crime No.201/00 on 9/6/00. After completing the investigation, final report was filed on 16/3/06. 3. The petitioner has now come before this Court with a request that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the present prosecution under Sec.3 read with Sec.25 of the Arms Act. 4. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation presently raised in the latter crime registered as Crime No.201/00 is integrally connected with Crime No.291/99 and the earlier crime having ended in acquittal, principles of autrefois acquit would apply and a further prosecution on the basis of the alleged offence detected on 20/8/99 is not legally maintainable. 5. I must disagree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the offence under the Arms Act was detected on 20/8/99 in the course of investigation of Crime No.291/99, the Crl.M.C. No. 3250 of 2008 -: 3 :- allegations are totally different, distinct and separate. The two prosecutions have no connection between them whatsoever, except that the petitioner is alleged to have committed both offences and that the latter crime was detected in the course of investigation of the earlier crime. In any view of the matter, the principles of autrefois acquit cannot apply and it is not at all necessary to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. No other contentions are raised. 6. In the nature of the facts of this case, I am satisfied that it is unnecessary to refer to various precedents cited at the Bar as the two prosecutions are totally unconnected with each other. They are committed on different dates. The fire arm which was seized on 20/8/99 has not even alleged to be used in the commission of Crime No.291/99. In these circumstances, this Crl.M.C. only deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 3250 of 2008 -: 4 :-