IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1817 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- (SC.NO.405/2007 OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT – NDPS ACT) VADAKARA) ..................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 47 YEARS, MAPPILANDI HOUSE, KUTTIADY AMSOM, VALAYANNUR DESOM, VADAKARA. BY ADVS. MR.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, MR.HARIDAS P.NAIR, MR. M.A.VINOD, M.RAJESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1817 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.C.405/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions court, Vadakara. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B charge sheet submitted in crime 142/1992 based on which cognizance was taken and later committed to the sessions court and pending before Additional sessions court, Vadakara. Case of the petitioner is that the case as against other accused were tried by learned Sessions Judge in S.C.845/2006 and as evidenced by Annexure-C judgment dated 17/4/2008 the other accused were already found not guilty and acquitted and in such circumstances, no purpose will be served by recording the evidence in this case and so the case is to be quashed. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to quash the pending sessions case as against the petitioner. Fact that other accused were CRMC 1817/09 2 acquitted in S.C.845/2006, for want of evidence as against them, is not a ground to quash the proceedings. Question whether there is evidence as against petitioner is to be decided in this case, after recording the evidence. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that in the F.I statement name of the petitioner was not mentioned and therefore, it is a valid ground to hold that case against petitioner is not correct. It is not for this court at this stage to consider whether omission to mention the name of the petitioner in the First Information Report is fatal to the petitioner or not. If the case of the petitioner is that there is no material available in the case records to frame a charge against him he is at liberty to seek an order of discharge from the sessions court. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.