IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1643 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2011 IN CMP 2180/2010 IN CC.52/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR,KOLLAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTHA DEVI,AMBALATHUM VEEDU,KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE,PARAVOOR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN, SRI.C.K.PRASAD, SRI.T.S.ANURAJ, SRI.SUGATHAN R. SRI.B.BALA PRASANNAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRRP.NO.1643/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR ISSUED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION DTD. 14/12/2009. ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.779/09 OF THE PARAVOOR POLICE STATION DTD. 14/12/2009. ANNEX.A3: COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION (CASE DIARY IN CRIME NO.779/09 OF THE PARAVOOR POLICE STATION DTD. 14/12/2009). ANNEX.A4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RATIONING INSPECTOR, PARAVOOR DTD. 14/12/2009. ANNEX.A5: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR WITH THE RECEIPT AND REPORT DTD. 15/12/2009. ANNEX.A6: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CARDIOLOGIST AT THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 15/12/2009. ANNEX.A7: COPY OF THE ORER IN CRL.M.P.NO.3503/09 DTD. 19/12/2009 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEX.A8: COPY OF THE CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME NO.779/09 OF THE PARAVOOR POLICE STATION SUBMIT BEFORE THE JFCM, PARAVOOR DTD. 06/01/2010. ANNEX.A9: COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENTS OF CW1 DTD. 14/12/2009. ANNEX.A10: COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENTS OF CW2 DTD. 14/12/2009. ANNEX.A11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO.267/10 DTD. 16/02/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEX.A12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(CIVIL)NO.27198/10 DTD.02/09/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1643 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C No.52/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, Kollam. She is prosecuted with another, 2nd accused, for the offence under Section 5A of the Rationing Order read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. She moved an application for discharge alleging that no case has been made out against her on the materials placed by the prosecution before the court. The learned Magistrate turned down the plea of discharge of the petitioner holding that there are materials to proceed against both the accused, including the petitioner. That order is challenged in the revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to Rule 5A of the Rationing Order submitted that on the materials placed by the prosecution no case will lie against the petitioner, who is the dealer of the ration shop from which ration goods are stated to have been taken and stored in the auto rickshaw of the second accused for transportation without authority. At any rate, such charge, if at all made out by the prosecution, would stand only against the second accused and not against the first accused is the Crl.R.P No.1643/2011 - 2 - submission of the counsel. She has no complicity over the incident and there was no depletion of stock from her ration shop, is the submission of the counsel seeking to place reliance on some inspection reports purported to have been made by the Rationing Officer after the alleged incident, by conducting an inspection in her shop. 3. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate with reference to the submissions made by the counsel. The gist of the case is that the Sub Inspector, Paravoor, in the early morning hours, at about 4:20 am, on 14-12-2009, while on patrol duty, detected an auto rickshaw parked beside a ration shop with ration goods stored in that vehicle. Second accused is stated to be the driver of that vehicle, seen at the spot. A lady was seen beside the shop, and when the Sub Inspector reached the spot she pulled down the half opened shutters of the shop, and left the place. The Sub Inspector, noticing that ration goods are stored in the auto rickshaw, and that the driver, second accused, had no valid explanation or authority to keep in his possession such goods, apprehended him and the vehicle with the goods. A crime was registered recording the F.I.R for the offence under Rule 5A of the Rationing Order and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Crl.R.P No.1643/2011 - 3 - Act. During the investigation of the crime, complicity of the petitioner, the first accused, in the removal of the stock - ration goods from her shop being disclosed, she was also made a coaccused in the case, and after completion of the investigation, final report was laid before the court indicting both the accused for the offences stated supra. 4. Rule 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order reads thus: “No person shall on or (after the 17th of August 1967) have in his possession any ration rice or ration wheat (any product of ration rice or ration wheat) in excess of the quantity to which he is entitled for a period of four weeks on the authority of his ration card or other ration document issued to him or on his behalf” A reading of the aforesaid rule, as contended by the counsel would spell out that such offence would lie, perhaps, only against the second accused, the driver of the vehicle, who was allegedly found with unauthorised possession of ration goods. The question whether his joint culpability with another, a ration dealer, for such offence, if he/she was a party to such violation is, no doubt, a matter to be decided in the trial of the case and not to be prejudged. Further more, in the facts of the case and on the materials placed, such question has to be decided on the evidence to be tendered in the case. It is within the province of the court to decide whether any Crl.R.P No.1643/2011 - 4 - alteration of the charge is warranted if it is shown from the materials placed that the violation is covered by some other rule also of the Rationing Order. Having regard to the allegations set out, how the case was detected by police officer during the patrol duty, and the materials placed, it cannot be stated that the charge imputed against the petitioners is groundless to pass an order of discharge in her favour. So much so, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. I make it clear that the observations made as above shall not have any bearing in the trial of the case, which has to be proceeded in accordance with law. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge