IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 306 of 2008() ------------------------ CRMP.4106/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ASHARAF, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. MALAKRI MEERAN RAWTHER, ANAZ MANZIL, MANJALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.V.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI NAROTICS SPECIAL SQUAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.M.C. No.306of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 28rd day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in crime No. 6/2006 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotics Special Squad, Kollam for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for allegedly carrying 39 kgs of ganja on 21.10.2006 at about 6.20 a.m in Chevrolet Trevera Car in which the petitioner was travelling in the back seat, was granted bail as per Annexure A1 order dated 05.01.2007. One of the conditions of the bail was that he should report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. On 19.12.2007 the Investigating Officer namely the Excise Circle Inspector, Karunagapally filed Annexure D petition for cancellation of the bail alleging that the petitioner had failed to report before the Investigating Officer after 28.03.2007 and that even though the Investigating Officer met the petitioner at his residence on 15.10.2007 for the purpose of recording his Crl. M.C. No. 306/2008 : 2: statement, he had reminded the petitioner of his legal obligation to report before the Investigating officer, the petitioner had flouted the said condition. 2. Annexure A application was opposed by the petitioner by filing Annexure E objections in which except saying that he is reporting before the Investigating Officer, he did not specifically deny the statement in Annexure D application that on 15.10.2007 the Circle Inspector had met him and reminded him of his obligation to comply with the condition. The learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure F order dated 05.01.2008 cancelled the bail for the violation of the aforesaid bail condition. 3. Even assuming that the Government had initiated an enquiry against the Excise officials for allegedly implicating the petitioner herein and the 2nd accused in the case, that will not absolve the petitioner of his legal obligation to report before the Investigating Officer. He had no case that even though he had reported on all Wednesdays before the Investigating Officer, the latter failed to record his presence or that the latter was acting mala fide with a view to see that the bail of the petitioner is Crl. M.C. No. 306/2008 : 3: cancelled. Such being the position, the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. The decision reported in State of Kerala v. Anil Kumar (2005 (4) KLT 59) cited on behalf of the petitioner has no application to the facts of this case since in that case there was appearance by the accused before the officer superior to the Investigating Officer and the alleged violation was only an innocent violation. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the findings of the court below. This Crl. M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl. M.C. No. 306/2008 : 4: