IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1056 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------- (C.P. NO. 193/2008 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 9: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. JANEESH P.S., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SADAGOPAN, LATHA NIVAS, CLAPPANA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHANAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVAN, PARISSERIL HOUSE, ADINAD SOUTH MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. ANANDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AJI BHAVAN, EDAKKAD P.O., KUNNATHOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KALLELI BHAGOM, MEENATHEVADAKKETHIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. BINU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, SUNIL BHAVAN, KALLELI BHAGAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.NANU, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PAVUMBA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. RAVI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.DAMODHARAN, ALUVILAYIL, PAVUMBA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. BHARATHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NANU, KALARIKKAL PADEETTATHIL, MANAPPALLY P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.NIREESH MATHEW. CRL.M.C. NO. 1056/2009-D: RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.SURESH BABU, ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1056 of 2009-D ================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009. O R D E R The petitioners are accused 2 to 9 in C.P.No.193/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. The excise officials conducted raid on 17-4-2008 and arrested first accused and seized artificial toddy under Annexure A Mahazer. Petitioners were implicated as accused 2 to 9 on the allegation that they are licensees of Toddy Shop No.45. When petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail, it was contended that there is nothing to connect the petitioners with artificial toddy seized from first accused. Under Annexure C order this Court directed petitioners to surrender and make them available for interrogation and directed to produce them before the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to release them on bail. When the final report was filed, petitioners filed Crl.M.C.No.4557/2008 to quash the final Crl.M.C.No.1056/2009-D -2- report. When the matter was heard and Court expressed displeassure on the investigation, Annexure E petition was filed for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code Criminal Procedure, which was granted under Annexure F order by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. The Crl.M.C. and W.P. filed by petitioners were disposed directing to expedite investigation and file final report. Annexure H final report was thereafter filed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure H final report and the case is pending before the Magistrate for committal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned Counsel and going through the records, I find that it is not in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings as sought for. The question whether there is sufficient material to establish the allegation that spirit used for manufacturing adulterated Crl.M.C.No.1056/2009-D -3- toddy by the first accused were supplied by the petitioners or not can only be decided on the evidence. It cannot be decided at this stage. It cannot be said that there is no material in the final report or the records produced along with the final report. When it is alleged by the prosecution that there was a conspiracy by petitioners and first accused to prepare adulterated toddy and for that purpose spirit was supplied by them, it cannot be said that no offence against them is made out so as to quash the case at this stage. Petitioners are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the trial court. Learned Magistrate is directed to commit the case to the Sessions Court without delay and learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose the case expeditiously. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr