IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3882 of 2011() ------------------------- SC.77/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 ---------------------------------- FASALUL ABID @ ABID, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, ILIYAS NAGAR, BEKAL, PALLIKKERE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.HARISH SRI.M.S.BREEZ RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.173/2007 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 313. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK Crl.MC.No. 3882 of 2011() ------------------------------ APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 1.5.2007 IN CRIME NO.173 OF 2007 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.17.6.11 IN SC NO.77/2009 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I) KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE AIII- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.8.11 ISSUED TO THE SURETIES OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE AIII(A)- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.8.11 ISSUED TO THE SURETIES OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE AIV. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.06.2011 FILED UNDER SECTION 321 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A TO JUDGE VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner herein was the 7th accused in Crime No.173/2007 of Bekal Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 149 IPC. The case against some of the accused were committed to the court of Sessions and tried as S.C.No.77/2009. Annexure AII is the copy of the judgment in that case. Petitioner herein was shown as A10 in Annexure AII. All the ten accused shown therein were discharged under Sec.321(a) Cr.P.C. The case against this petitioner was again committed to the court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate and now it is pending as S.C.No.300/2009. A report was called for from J.F.C.M.-II, Hosdurg and also from learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2011 -: 2 :- has reported that this petitioner and A1 and A6 in original charge sheet were absconding and so their case was actually split up and it was re-numbered as C.P.No.109/2008 and those three persons were arrayed as A1 to A3. Their case was not committed earlier. When A1 therein surrendered before the committal court that case was committed to the court of Session and it was taken on file as S.C.No.193/2009. When A2 therein and A3-the petitioner herein surrendered before the learned Magistrate, it was refiled as C.P.No.39/2009 and that case was also committed to the court of Session. That means the names of A1 to A3 mentioned above should not have been shown as accused in Annexure AII order. Thus the trial court committed a mistake in showing the names of all the accused in Annexure AII order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other accused were discharged by the learned Sessions Judge under Sec.321(a) Cr.P.C. In the light of the Crl.M.C. No.3882 of 2011 -: 3 :- application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor (which is shown as Annexure AIV here), a request was made to grant sanction to the prosecution to withdraw the case in connection with Crime No.173/2007 of Bekal Police Station. That petition was virtually allowed by the trial court. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the benefit of acquittal may be extended to all the accused therein including the petitioner herein. The fact that he was allowed to be discharged by the learned Sessions Judge even though the procedure followed may not be correct may also be taken into account, the learned counsel submits. Considering all these aspects, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings against this petitioner in S.C.No.300/2009 will stand quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt