IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1672 of 2009 -------------------------------- CP. 83/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL ........................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUNIL KUMAR C.P., S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN POTTI, AGED 39 YEARS, SRUTHI NIVAS, THATTA P.O., PANADALAM THEKKEKARA, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1672 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th July 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the fifth accused in C.P.83/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against him contending that though he is the R.C owner of Maruti car KL-3/M-1810 which was seized by the police on 27/10/2006 on the allegation that spirit was being carried in the vehicle, petitioner had sold the vehicle on 13/10/2006 itself , after receiving advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and Annexure-I agreement was entered into and therefore from 13/10/2006 petitioner has nothing to do with the vehicle and only first accused was the person in control of the vehicle on 27/10/2006 and therefore the case as against petitioner is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for CRMC 1672/09 2 petitioner argued that in Annexure-II order passed by this court while granting anticipatory bail, it was found that prima facie there is no material indicating that petitioner has anything to do with the transport of contraband spirit and as petitioner has nothing to do with the vehicle on 27/10/2006 the case as against him is to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary and submitted that Annexure-I agreement was not there inside the vehicle on the date of its seizure and it is possible that the agreement was created later and in the confiscation proceedings petitioner had contended that agreement for sale was on 26/10/2006 and not on 27/10/2006 as seen in Annexure-I and in such circumstances, based on Annexure-I case cannot be quashed. 5. There is force in the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Based on Annexure-I agreement alone it cannot be said that petitioner has nothing to do with the case on the date of its seizure. Under Annexure-I agreement a Maruti car valued at Rs.1,90,000/- was agreed to be sold to first accused and only Rs.10,000/- was received on the date CRMC 1672/09 3 as advance and the balance is to be paid. It is the case of the petitioner before confiscation proceedings that petitioner did not receive the balance consideration. In such circumstances, whether Annexure-I agreement is a genuine one is to be decided and it cannot be decided in this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If addressed petitioner can seek a discharge before the Sessions court. With that liberty petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.