IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3350 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.589/1999 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: 5TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- SANJULAL @ SANJU, S/O. KRISHNAN ASARI, KRISHNA BHAVAN VEEDU, KADAKKALAM, MULLOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: STATE: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3350 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment as the 5th accused in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. Altogether there were 5 accused persons. The petitioner was not available for trial. The co-accused were tried, found not guilty and acquitted. As the petitioner was not available for trial, the case against him was split up. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Reckoning him as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Judge. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against him may be quashed. The principal witness is no more. In the trial against the co-accused, there was absolute want of evidence. In these circumstances, the case against the petitioner may be quashed, it is prayed. 3. The decision of the Full Bench in [Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552] is authority for the proposition that an absconding co-accused cannot claim any Crl.M.C. No.3350 of 2008 2 benefit or advantage from the mere fact that the co-accused , in the trial held against them, have been acquitted on the ground that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced against them. In that case, the prosecution was not obliged to adduce any evidence against the petitioner. The paucity of evidence in that case cannot justify the claim by the petitioner for any benefit or advantage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner earlier was not wilful or deliberate. He is willing to surrender before the learned Judge and apply for bail. But he apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Judge on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Judge and explain to the learned Judge the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or Crl.M.C. No.3350 of 2008 3 specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Judge and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Judge must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself, in the light of the decision in Sukumari v. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T 22]. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-