IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE, R. BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1733 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.826/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------ BHADRAKUMAR, S/O.BHARGAVAN, PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, CHEERALKAVU CHERRI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 1733 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner faced indictment along with two co-accused in a prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act. Petitioner is the licensee in respect of a toddy shop and accused 2 and 3, his salesmen, had allegedly sold illicit liquor in the shop of which the petitioner is the licensee - admittedly, in the absence of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner was absconding and did not participate in the trial. Trial against accused 2 and 3 were conducted. The prosecution examined all evidence which it intended to adduce. On merits, the learned Magistrate rendered a finding that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that accused 2 and 3 were engaged in such sale of illicit liquor. Accordingly, they were found not guilty and acquitted. But, the case against the petitioner was split up and re-numbered. 3. Petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the surviving prosecution against him may be quashed. In as much as the accused 2 and 3 had not been found guilty of selling illicit Crl.M.C. No. 1733 OF 2008 2 liquor, as alleged by the prosecution, the petitioner who is the licensee can have no liability for such alleged sale by accused 2 and 3. No useful purpose will be served by the continuation of the prosecution. If accused 2 and 3 are not guilty of the offences alleged against them on the basis of a finding on merits, there can be no substratum on which the prosecution against the petitioner can stand. The petitioner's case is certainly outside the sweep of the dictum in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552], it is submitted. 4. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not a case where the prosecution did not examine any witnesses or can make any better evidence available to the court when the trial of the petitioner is taken up. The guilt of the petitioner is dependent on the guilt of accused 2 and 3. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked and proceedings can be brought to premature termination. Crl.M.C. No. 1733 OF 2008 3 In the result; 1. This Crl.M.C. Is allowed. 2. ST No. 826/01, pending against the petitioner before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor is hereby quashed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1733 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 1733 OF 2008 5