IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4179 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ( CC.NO. 180/2009, CC.NO.133/2005 AND CC.NO. 476/2003 OF JFCM COURT-I, PALAKKAD, IN CRIME NO. 60/2003 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS 2 AND 5 --------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUJEEB, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOOZA, MANDAYIPURAM, KAKKADU, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED ALI @ ALI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABU HAJI, PERANKUZHIYIL VEEDU, KARIMBIL, KAKKADU, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY S.I. OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN- 678 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (RURAL), PALAKKAD.PIN- 678 001 (BOTH REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM).COCHIN-31. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4179 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were accused 2 and 5 in C.C.No. 476/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Palakkad. As accused 2, 3 and 5 were absconding, case against them was split up and re-filed as C.C.No.133/2005. Accused 1 and 4 were tried and by Annexure-B judgment, those accused were acquitted. Subsequently, when presence of the third accused was procured, he was tried and by Annexure-B judgment, he was acquitted. The case against accused 2 and 5 was split up and re-filed as C.C.No.180/2009. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that in view of the order of acquittal of the remaining accused and when there is no investigation as provided under Section 4 of Arms Act, prosecution for the offence under Section 20 read with Section 27 of Arms Act is not CRMC 4179/10 2 sustainable and hence, in the interest of justice, the prosecution is to be quashed. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Prosecution case is that on 15.3.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., the five accused were found in a motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-01/A 2266 along with swords and iron rods, with an intention to commit robbery of vehicles passing through the National Highway. Annexures-B and C judgments show that out of the five accused, three were already acquitted after trial. It also establish that learned Magistrate acquitted those accused finding that there is no evidence to prove that the area was notified as provided under Section 4 of Arms Act and when evidence was recorded, Circle Inspector of Police deposed that he is not aware whether there is any notification or not. Learned senior counsel pointed out that in view of that finding, which is CRMC 4179/10 3 not disputed, even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and therefore, the case is to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is no notification. 4. When there is admittedly no notification issued by the Central Government, regulating possession of arms in the area, an offence under Section 20 read with Section 27 of Arms Act is not attracted. In such circumstances, when there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, even if petitioners are to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.180/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Palakkad is quashed. 29th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv