IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2742 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- [SC.NO.268/2004 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- DAWOOD RAVI @ RAVEENDRAN S/O. KUNHANNA RAI, AGED 42 YEARS, ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KASARAGODE RANGE 2. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2742 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner was the second accused in S.C.256/2001 on the file of Assistant Sessions court, Kasargod. As he was absconding, case as against him was split up and re-filed as S.C.268/2004. First accused was tried and convicted under Annexure-I judgment. First accused challenged that conviction before Sessions court, Kasargod in Crl.A.106/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge under Annexure-II judgment, reversed the conviction and acquitted the first accused. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against him contending that in view of the order of acquittal of first accused, even if petitioner is to be tried, as there is no chance for a conviction, case is to be quashed. It is contended that there is no material to show that petitioner committed the offence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner CRMC 2742/09 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel relying on paragraph 15 of Annexure-I judgment argued that based on the evidence learned Assistant Sessions Judge has found that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the second accused, petitioner herein, with the crime and in such circumstances, even if petitioner is to be tried he cannot be convicted and therefore, in the interest of justice the case is to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence and therefore, trial would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. 4. Annexure-IV final report establish that case as against the first accused was only that he permitted the petitioner to store 13000 packets each of 100 ml spirit, illegally transported from Karnataka, in the shed allotted to him in the industrial estate at Kasargod and not that first accused transported the spirit from Karnataka. Therefore, when the case is that it is the petitioner who transported spirit and stored in the shed in the industrial estate, order of acquittal of first accused CRMC 2742/09 3 by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. When the petitioner was not tried in S.C.256/2001 learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not justified in entering a finding with regard to the second accused. Whatever it be, Annexure-I judgment was set aside under Annexure-2 judgment. Final report made available by the Public Prosecutor shows that CW7 was cited as a witness to connect the petitioner with the offence. Question whether that witness would depose against the petitioner, cannot be pre-judged in this petition. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at the time of trial. Based on the order of acquittal of first accused, the case cannot be quashed. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.