IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3243 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.745/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI CRIME NO.341/04 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. BIJU, S/O. BALACHANDRAN, PLAKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, NARAKAL KARA, NARAKAL VILLAGE. 2. PRADEEP, S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, MADARAKAL VEEDU, NARAKKAL KARA, NARAKAL VILLAGE. 3. DANI, S/O. ASHOKAN, ATTIPETTYPARAMBU VEEDU, NARAKAL KARA, NARAKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN SRI.T.G.GOPINATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3243 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused 1, 2 and 3 in a prosecution and they faced indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.324 and 427 read with Sec.149 IPC. Altogether, there are 8 accused persons. Some of the co-accused faced trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted conceding them the benefit of doubt. The petitioners, who were accused 3, 6 and 8 in the original indictment, were not available for trial. After the co-accused secured acquittal, the petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution in so far as it relates to them may be quashed in the light of the judgment of acquittal in favour of the co- accused. 2. I am afraid, the request cannot be accepted. The Full Crl.M.C. No. 3243 of 2008 -: 2 :- Bench decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) makes it clear that an absconding co-accused cannot claim any benefit or advantage on the basis of the fact that the co-accused in a separate trial held against them were found not guilty and acquitted in such proceedings. The mere fact that the co-accused had secured acquittal is no reason for this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to extend the benefit of such acquittal for the absconding co-accused also. The reading of the judgment clearly shows that the co-accused were only found entitled to the benefit of doubt on the basis of the materials which were placed before court in such prosecution against the co-accused. The prosecution was not obliged to adduce any evidence against the absconding co- accused in such trial against the co-accused who were available for trial. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that in the light of the decision in Moosa, the prayer of the petitioners is without any merit. The petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and advance all their contentions at the appropriate stage to claim discharge/acquittal. 3. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. It is submitted that the warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Crl.M.C. No. 3243 of 2008 -: 3 :- Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge