IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4195 of 2005 ---------------------------- (CRIME NO. 192 OF 2005 OF KONNI POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): --------------- C. UPENDRAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KARUNALAYAM, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.K.K.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.15151/2005 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4195 OF 2005 ....... DISMISSED. 18/12/2005. SD/-A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4195 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009. ORDER Petitioner who was a licensee of a toddy shop bearing No.5 of Konni Excise Range was implicated in Crime No.192/2005 of Konni Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) and Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that about 15 litres of arrack was recovered from near a well situated in the proximity of the toddy shop. This petition under section 482 of the Code was filed way back in the year 2005 seeking to quash the FIR. 2. It is pointed out by Sri.K.P.Satheesan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the crime was registered by the Police initially without implicating anybody as accused. According to the Police, search was effected on May 24, 2005 at about 12.15 PM. The Police did not have a case that any incriminating substance was recovered from the toddy shop. But the alleged recovery of arrack was made from near a well situated away from the toddy shop. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that if in fact the Police had suspected the complicity of the petitioner in the crime at the stage when the alleged recovery was made, there was no reason why in the First Information Report the petitioner would not have been arraigned as an accused. The fact that the investigating officer filed an additional report after 18 days implicating the petitioner will by itself show that it was clearly an afterthought. Petitioner has raised a specific Crl.MC.4195/05 2 contention that he has been implicated in the case at the behest of a rival toddy shop owner. I refrain from dealing with the above contention raised by the learned counsel at this stage in view of the order that I propose to pass. 4. The material available on record will definitely show that there is some force in the contentions raised by the petitioner inasmuch as petitioner was not implicated in the crime at the initial stage even though allegedly some arrack was recovered outside the premises of the toddy shop. At a later stage petitioner was implicated. There is no clue as to what prompted the investigating agency to implicate the petitioner after about 18 days. Anyhow the fact remains that petitioner is now charged with commission of the offences referred to above. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions submits that the Police had completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the Court in December 2006 itself. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that petitioner has to necessarily approach the trial court and urge all his contentions at the appropriate stage. 6. It will be open to the petitioner to seek for discharge, if so advised, in which event the court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner Crl.M.C is closed in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.