IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3485 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.711/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- MUHAMMED NAIZAM, S/O.C.K.MAHIN, AGED 35 YEARS, CHEKKARAMKODE HOUSE, CHEMNADU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3485 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, who faces allegations under the Foreigners Act, has come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him. 2. Altogether there were three accused in the crime. Two co-accused were foreigners. The allegation against them was that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 511 I.P.C. as also the provisions of the Foreigners Act. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he being the Manager of a lodge did not promptly inform the police about occupancy of his lodge by foreigners. The petitioner was not available for trial. The co-accused face trial. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under the provisions of the Foreigners Act. The case against the petitioner was split up. He has not entered appearance so far. Crl.M.C.No. 3485 of 2008 2 3. At the moment and with the available inputs, I am unable to find anything vitiating the prosecution against the petitioner as to persuade this Court to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, there is no material whatsoever collected against the petitioner in the investigation. Significantly the relevant statement of the witnesses had not been produced. 4. The next contention is that in the trial against the co-accused there is no semblance of material to implicate the petitioner. It is now trite, after the decision of the Full Bench in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), that the acquittal of the co-accused in the trial held against them cannot deliver any advantage or benefit to the absconding co-accused. More over, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the allegation against the petitioner is qualitatively different from the allegations against the co-accused. The prosecution was not obliged to adduce any evidence against the petitioner in the trial against the co-accused. In these circumstances paucity of evidence against the petitioner in the trial against the co-accused cannot deliver any advantage to the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 3485 of 2008 3 5. It is for the petitioner now to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. If he so surrenders, needless to say, his application will have to be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously in the light of the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). The petitioner can certainly apply to the learned Magistrate for premature termination of proceedings against him under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, needless to say, must consider such plea for premature termination of proceedings by discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm