IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1858 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.948/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------- BHADRAKUMAR, S/O. BHARGAVAN, PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE CHERRI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.M.R.ANUPAMA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB. 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. 1858 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner faced indictment as first accused in a prosecution under Section 55(a) and (h) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations raised is that, in a toddy shop of which the petitioner is the licensee, his salesman, the second accused, was found selling illicit liquor. Both of them together were charge sheeted. Petitioner was absconding and was not available for trial. The co-accused faced trial but he was found not guilty and acquitted. Though the prosecution examined the detecting officer and two eye witnesses, the learned Magistrate did not accept the case of the prosecution and found the second accused not guilty and acquitted him. 2. The petitioner has not stood for trial so far. He has now come before this Court with a prayer under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the surviving proceedings against him as the judgment of acquittal has already been rendered in favour of the second accused. 3. It is seen that the prosecution had full and complete opportunity to examine all witnesses and all witnesses were Crl.M.C. No. 1858 OF 2008 2 examined in the trial against the co-accused. It is thereafter the finding has been rendered that the allegation against the second accused has not been proved. If the second accused is not guilty of the offences alleged against him on the basis of a finding on merits, there can be no substratum on which the prosecution against the petitioner can stand. 4. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner must, in these circumstances, be held to be fall outside the sweep of the dictum in Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552] and consequently the petitioner is entitled to invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result: 1. This Crl.M.C. Is allowed. 2. ST No. 948/01, pending against the petitioner before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor is hereby quashed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 1858 OF 2008 3 Crl.M.C. No. 1858 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 1858 OF 2008 5