IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3019 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.118/CR/99 OF CBCID, KANNUR ......... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: ABDUL SALAM,S/O. MOIDEEN, PALOLIPARAMBATH HOUSE, VALAYAPPILLY, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION. 2. CBCID, KANNUR. 3. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3019 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 118/CR/99 of CBCID, Kannur, now pending as S.C.No. 136/2008 on the file of Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Kozhikode. The case as against original accused 1, 6 and 7 was committed to the Sessions Court and they were tried in S.C.No.590/2003. Under Annexure-I judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted those accused finding them not guilty of the offences under Sections 489B and C read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the findings in Annexure-I judgment that Room No.106 of Popular Tourist Home was in joint possession of original seventh accused and the police officer, the case as against the petitioner, even if tried, cannot end in conviction and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. CRMC 3019/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Annexure-I judgment, argued that, as seen from paragraph 27 of the judgment, it was already found on evidence that Room No.106 of Popular Tourist Home was in joint possession of the original seventh accused as well as the police officer and in such circumstances, prosecution case that petitioner, along with other accused, was there with the intention of using the counterfeit currency notes, can never be accepted and therefore, even if petitioner is to be tried, it can never end in conviction and if so, the case is to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case as against the accused, who were tried in Annexure-I judgment, is not similar to the allegations as against the petitioner and in view of the evidence recorded therein, the case as against the petitioner cannot be quashed as sought for. There is force in the submission. CRMC 3019/09 3 5. The fact that some of the co-accused were acquitted under Annexure-I judgment is not a ground to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. The nature of the evidence as against the petitioner is different. Hence, for the reason that those accused were acquitted by itself is not a ground to quash the case as against the petitioner. The grounds raised are matters for consideration at the time of trial. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the Sessions Judge at the time of trial and if no charge is so far framed, he is also at liberty to seek an order of discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. With that liberty, petition is dismissed. 7th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv