IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1824 of 2009 -------------------------------- SC.355/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- G.K.SATHYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, ERUVATTY, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHERMADAM THALLASSERY, KANNUR. REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1824 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.20 in S.C.No.355/2000 on the file of Sessions Court, Thalassery. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against him, which is now pending in the L.P. Register as petitioner was absconding when the other accused were tried in S.C.No.355/2008. The case of the petitioner is that under Annexure A2 judgment, the Sessions Judge after trial acquitted all the remaining 20 accused and in the light of the evidence let in and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, even if petitioner is to be tried there is no chance of a successful prosecution and therefore this court in the interest of justice has to exercise the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Crl.M.C.No.1824/2009 -2- 3. Argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 SC) is that the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is wide enough so that to secure ends of justice, prosecution can be quashed when there is absolutely no chance for conviction of the petitioner. It was also argued that none of the witnesses examined earlier identified the accused persons and therefore, even if they are to be examined again, there is no chance of identifying the petitioner and in such circumstances the case is to be quashed. The learned Counsel further argued that even if the ordeal of trial is undergone and all the witnesses are again examined, it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel, I do not find that this is a case where extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court is to be invoked to quash the proceedings. The fact that the witnesses examined in S.C.No.355/2000 did not identify these accused, who were standing in the dock as the persons Crl.M.C.No.1824/2009 -3- involved, need not necessarily mean that petitioner also will not be identified. It may be that the witnesses may identify him also. But based on such assumption this court cannot quash the proceedings. In such circumstances, the petition is dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that Sessions Judge may be directed to grant bail. The question of granting bail is to be decided by the Sessions Judge, when the petitioner surrenders and files an application for bail. Learned Counsel then submitted that there may be a direction to the Sessions Judge to pass orders on the bail application on the date of surrender. I do not find any reason to give any such direction, as there is no reason to believe that the learned Sessions Judge is unaware of the decisions of this court or the Apex Court or that the learned Sessions Judge will not act in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr