IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3513 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CC 854/2005 IN CC.97/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.7, 11 AND 12: ---------------------------------------- 1. K.MURUGAN, S/O.KANNAN PILLAI, MEERAFLORAS ESTATE, NELLIYAMAPATHI, PADAGIRI P.O. NOW RESIDING AT ARYADRAVIDA VEEDHI, 53/B, CHINNAVEDAMPATTI, COIMBATORE. 2. EASWARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHURULI, MEERAFLORAS ESTATE, NELLIYAMAPATHI, PADAGIRI P.O. 3. S.MURUGAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.CHITHRAN PILLAI, MEERAFLORAS ESTATE, NELLIYAMAPATHI, PADAGIRI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3513 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioners faced indictment as accused 7, 11 and 12 in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sec.27 of the Kerala Forest Act. The co-accused, who faced trial, have been found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure-I judgment. The case against the petitioners and A9 was split up and re- numbered. 2. The petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer that the surviving prosecution against them may also be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. This application is opposed. 4. The decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) lays down that an absconding co-accused Crl.M.C. No.3513 of 2008 -: 2 :- cannot claim any benefit or advantage from the fact that the co- accused, who faced trial, have been found not guilty and acquitted on the basis of the evidence tendered in such case against them. In such prosecution, the State/the prosecution has no obligation whatsoever to adduce evidence against the absconding co-accused. In fact, a perusal of Annexure-I reveals that it is on the basis of an omission to produce certain documents that the said case ended in acquittal. Nothing stops the prosecution from producing the relevant documents in the surviving prosecution against the petitioners. The petitioners cannot claim any advantage from the fact that such documents have not been produced before court in such earlier prosecution against the co-accused. 5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to take all necessary and appropriate contentions in the prosecution against them. I have only chosen to take the view that the prosecution does not deserve to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there may be a direction that the applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they Crl.M.C. No.3513 of 2008 -: 3 :- surrender before the learned Magistrate may be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself following the dictum in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). I am satisfied that no special or specific directions need be issued in this regard. Every court must comply with the same. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/