IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3240 of 2007(F) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.108/01 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT C.P.23/04 OF JFMC-I, PALAKKAD. CRL.R.P.87/04 OF II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD. ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.4 ------------------------------------ P.RAVI, S/O PACHAMUTHU, XI, VRINDAVAN STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, MADRAS-3 (24/321, SASTHAMKOVIL ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14) BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA NAIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. M. C. No.3240 of 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 ORDER The petitioner who is arraigned as fourth accused in Annexure-B Final Report submitted by the Walayar Police in a case involving commission of offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C for quashing Annexure-B to the extent it relates to him. According to him, he was arraigned as an accused only because he happened to be the registered owner of the vehicle having Registration No.KL-01-N/9333 an airbus from which the contraband articles - 71 bottles of foreign liquor - was being transported from Tamilnadu to Kerala state. He places strong reliance on judgment of this Court in Sooraj v. Excise Inspector (2002(1) KLJ Crl. M. C. No.3240 of 2007 -2- 739) and Sony C. Mathew v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLJ 629) and contends that just because he happened to be the registered owner of the vehicle from which liquor is seized, he is not liable to be convicted under Section 55(a). Sri.Saju J. Vallyara, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Rekha Nair, the learned Public Prosecutor would address arguments before me. Sri.Saju drew my attention to the judgments in Sooraj v. Excise Inspector (2002(1) KLJ 739) and Sony C. Mathew v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLJ 629). He also took me through various exhibits particularly Annexure-B. I am convinced by Annexure- B and other materials produced along with the Crl. M. C that the prosecution did not have even an allegation that the petitioner had any role in the matter of commission of the offence under Section 55(a). He has Crl. M. C. No.3240 of 2007 -3- been arraigned obviously because of the reason that he happens to be the registered owner. A reading of Annexure-C order passed by the Sessions Court in Crl. R.P. No.87/04 which was filed by the petitioner challenging the notice which was issued to him will reveal that the petitioner was not even arraigned as an accused in the FIR to begin with. It was somebody else, one Mr.Mohanan who was arraigned at that time. It seems that Mohanan was guilty of commission of some other offence of his own, but for reasons which are not presently known, Mohanan has been substituted by the present petitioner who concededly is the registered owner of the vehicle. I find much merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner founded as they are on the judgments of this Court cited supra. The petition has to succeed. Crl. M. C. No.3240 of 2007 -4- Annexure-B Final Report to the extent it arraigns the petitioner as accused No.4 is quashed. The Crl. M.C is thus, allowed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE kns/-