IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4565 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC(NDPS).3/2008 IN SC.3/2008 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BENNY MATHEW @ BENNY OF NARAKAKKANAM, S/O.JOY THOMAS, KARAMULLIL, 8/219, [NEW NO.4/277], NARAKAKKANAM, MARIYAPURAM.POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, TRIVANDRUM-3 REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4565 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the N.D.P.S. Act. The alleged incident took place as early as in 2001. At last, charges have been framed and the matter stands listed for trial to 29/11/08. At this eleventh hour, evidently to avoid the obligation to get ready for trial, according to me, the petitioner has come to this Court with this Crl.M.C. claiming under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. that the charges raised against him may be quashed. 2. An indictee facing a criminal prosecution undoubtedly has the option to claim premature termination of proceedings. Such premature termination must ordinarily be claimed by claiming discharge at the appropriate stage. In a sessions trial such discharge is to be claimed under Sec.227 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 4565 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. Has the petition claimed discharge? The obvious answer is that no such plea for discharge was raised. Whether plea for discharge is raised or not, it is true that the court has to consider whether charges are liable to be framed under Sec.227 Cr.P.C. In this case, the court evidently has considered the matter and an order framing charge has already been passed as can be seen from Annexure-C i.e., the order dated 4/8/08. This is a revisable order, it is evident. The order has not been challenged in revision also admittedly. 4. I am not, in the facts and circumstances of this case, satisfied that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioner who on his own showing has not claimed discharge at the stage of Sec.227 Cr.P.C.; nor has he chosen to challenge the order framing charge. I am certainly satisfied that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. does not deserve to be invoked. The petitioner must stand trial. He can raise all his contentions before the Special Judge. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to raise all contentions in the trial which is to start imminently on 29/11/08. The certified copy of the order – Annexure-C, shall Crl.M.C. No. 4565 of 2008 -: 3 :- forthwith be released to the petitioner. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge