IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3005 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC 549/2007 IN LP.127/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------- MANOJ ABRAHAM,S/O.KURUVILA ABRAHAM, ERUPATHATTIL PUTHENPURAYIL,KUMARANKARY.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO.3005/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 06/06/2011 IN CRIME NO.176/2001 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION DATED 15/05/2001 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION (RELEVANT PORTION). ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/02/2006 IN C.C. NO.154/2002 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3005 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.549/2007 of J.F.C.M.-I, Changanacherry. There was altogether three accused. The case against two accused was already disposed of. The copy of the judgment has been produced as Annexure-A2. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the drivers of the JCB and tipper lorry died when the mud from the hilly/sloppy area slid and fell on the two vehicles, which according to the prosecution was due to the negligence of the owners of the two vehicles. When the two accused were tried, the witnesses examined before that court did not say anything about the negligence on the part of the owners. In the light of the averments in the charge itself, according to the learned counsel, the case cannot be sustained. Crl.M.C. No.3005 of 2011 -: 2 :- Whatever that be, since the other two accused who faced the trial were acquitted as there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty, I find, no useful purpose will be served having a trial as against this petitioner, the 3rd accused in the aforesaid case. As such, I find that the aforesaid case C.C.No.549/2007 is to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C.No.549/2007 as stated above is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt