IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2763 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- [CP.NO.146/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I , KARUNAGAPPALLY, CRIME NO. 59/2005 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY] .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SUKUMARAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.UMMINI, REVATHY BHAVANAM, THODIYOOR NORTH, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. MR.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2763 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of September,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.P.No.146/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under section 55(g) of Abkari Act contending that he is a senior citizen aged 75 years and the final report is filed after a lapse of four years to wreck vengeance and the report of the chemical analysis is dated 12.4.2006 after a lapse of one year and in such circumstance it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that the house from which the liquor was seized does not belong to the petitioner and the report of chemical analysis was obtained after a lapse of one year from the date of seizure and in such circumstance the case is to be Crl.M.C.2763/2009 2 quashed. 4. The fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen is not a ground to quash the offence. There is no exception for a senior citizen in committing an offence under the Abkari Act or under Indian Penal Code. The fact that the report of chemical analyst received after examination, one year from the date of seizure is not a ground to quash the proceedings. The question whether the house from where the seizure was affected belongs to the petitioner or was in his possession, is a matter for evidence and cannot be decided in this petition. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the Sessions Court once the case is committed to that court. Petition can only be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that there may be a direction to consider the application for bail on the date of surrender. If an accused surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Crl.M.C.2763/2009 3 tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006