IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2955 of 2008() ------------------------------------- CC.1049/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. E.O. LAWRENCE, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.T.A. JOSE AND COMPANY, AWD NO.4, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. 2. P.A.THANKAMMA, W/O.LAWRENCE, PARTNER, M/S.T.A. JOSE AND COMPANY, AWD NO.4, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K. BALAKRISHNAN, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2955 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 15th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.1049/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam taken cognizance for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and clause (5) of Kerala Rationing Order and Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts and Display of Prices and Stocks Order), 1966 on Annexure-A complaint filed by first respondent, District Supply Officer. Allegation in Annexure-A complaint is that on 24/4/2008 at 12.30 p.m, first respondent along with rationing Inspectors, reached the godown in the possession of first Crmc 2955/08 2 accused and owned by M/s.T.A.Jose and Company, Mundoor, Thrissur. First petitioner is the Managing Partner and second petitioner is his wife, who is also one of the partners of that firm. According to first respondent search was conducted as complaints were received that Star Traders is engaged in the business of ration articles illegally and the room in the possession of first accused, where Star Traders is being run in building bearing door No.10/171 consisting of two rooms. From there it was found that 48 sacks containing 50 Kgs.each having a total weight of 24 quintal of boiled rice, 37.62 quintal of raw rice in 76 sacks consisting of 49½ Kg. per sack and 12.87 quintal having 49½ kgs. of boiled rice and 1 quintal of Crmc 2955/08 3 wheat consisting of two sacks, 27 quintal of boiled rice in 36 sacks of 75 kgs. each and 13.5 quintal of raw rice in 18 sacks consisting of 75 Kgs.each and 57.75 quintal of raw rice in 77 sacks weighing 75 Kgs. per sack and 417 sacks of raw rice each weighing 50 Kgs., with total weight of 208.50 quintal and 118 sacks of paddy weighing 48.15 quintal were seized. Complaint is lodged against the petitioners also on the allegations that first accused was engaged in storing the ration articles in violation of order, in the building owned by the petitioners and building was permitted to be used by the petitioners and they thereby committed the offence. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that continuation of Crmc 2955/08 4 the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the court as they were implicated for the sole reason that they are the owners of godown, when final report itself shows that godown was in the possession of the first respondent exclusively. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that except the allegation that petitioners are owners of the godown, from which ration articles were seized, there is no material to connect the petitioners with the ration articles seized or the offence committed and hence, the case is to be quashed. It was also argued that there is no material, whatsoever to connect petitioners with the ration articles seized, especially when the building from Crmc 2955/08 5 where it was seized was in the possession of first accused exclusively. 3. Annexure-A complaint does not show that first respondent has a case that the building, from where ration articles were seized, was in the possession of the petitioners exclusively or was in the joint possession of the petitioners and first accused. On the other hand, the very case is that first accused was in exclusive possession of the building, though the building was owned by the petitioners. When possession of building was transferred to first accused, first accused alone could be tried and convicted for keeping any material, like ration articles or any other contraband articles in that room, on the basis that the building belongs to the Crmc 2955/08 6 petitioners. That exactly is the case herein. Though sixteen witnesses were shown in Annexure-A complaint, purpose of examination of the witnesses do no show that any of the witnesses is to be examined to prove that the building from where ration articles were seized was in the possession of the petitioners. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the building was in the exclusive possession of the first accused. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that there was a criminal conspiracy or a common intention with the first accused for the petitioners, to keep the ration articles in that room, petitioners cannot be prosecuted. Even if petitioners are to be tried consequent to the lack of materials, there Crmc 2955/08 7 is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as against the petitioners. Petition is allowed. C.C.1049/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam as against the petitioners, accused 2 and 3, is quashed. It is made clear that the case as against first accused can be proceeded. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.