IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 272 of 2009() ------------------------ SC.571/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------- K.V.HARIDAS,S/O.VASU, KARAKKAD VEEDU, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.272 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 57 A of the Kerala Abkari Act and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The case has been committed to the Court of Session. The same is pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Cherthala as S.C.No.571 of 2004. The petitioner is the 3rd accused. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners has come to this Court for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the nature of directions that the petitioner seeks ? The petitioner prays that the prosecution against him may be quashed. Various grounds are raised. I shall not delve deeper into the precise disputes regarding the facts raised. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the licencee of the toddy shop. The petitioner's contention, it appears, is that he was not conducting the shop directly and that the licence was taken in his name on the basis of some arrangements with others. Crl.M.C. No.272 of 2009 2 3. An indictee facing unjustified prosecution can certainly claim premature termination of such proceedings. Such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary and normal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the prosecution of a sessions offence instituted on the basis of a final report, such premature termination must be claimed in accordance with the provisions of Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. In an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand resort to such course, this Court does of course have the reservoir of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal prosecution. But that course cannot be invoked as a matter of routine. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to perceive any such exceptional reasons. This I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to claim premature termination by discharge at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. I may hasten to observe that I have Crl.M.C. No.272 of 2009 3 not intended to express any authentic opinion on the right of the petitioner to get proceedings against him terminated. I have only chosen to say that there is no justifiable grounds to warrant invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that the petitioner can raise all the relevant contentions before the Sessions Court at the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C and if he not be successful then, later at the stage of acquittal/conviction. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-