IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1488 of 2011() ------------------------------ SC.1375/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT: --------------------- SURESH, S/O.DAMODARAN, KAIPPALLIL VEEDU, THAZHATHU VADAKKUCHERRY, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, PATTAZHI, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD, SRI.SAJU J PANICKER. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND THE STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JACOB FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS, PANATTIL VEEDU, PAIPPADU, CHANGANASSERI - 682 365. 2. CHANDRA BABU, S/O.KRISHNAN, HARIS VEEDU, CHEMMARUTHI, VARKALA - 696 523. 3. VIJAYA KUMAR,S/O.BHASKARAN, KALLUMADA VEEDU, VALACODU - 691 508. 4. PRAKASH, S/O.SREEDHARAN, SREEMANDIRAM, EZHUKONE - 691 501. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1488 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 ORDER The revision is by the de facto complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused, four in number, who are excise officials, in Sessions Case No.1375 of 2004 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara. The accused were prosecuted for the offences under sections 323, 324, 342, 193, 195 and 211 read with 34 I.P.C. A complaint filed by the revision petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, referred for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police, after investigation, led to the final report indicting the accused for the aforesaid offences by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakara. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the offences and the learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted them. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner has filed this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The case set out by the revision petitioner was that, while he was returning in a tempo trax, after conducting patrol duty for the police, on the way some Crl.R.P.No.1488 OF 2011 2 excise officials signalled him to stop, but he did not do so and proceeded. After covering some distance, the vehicle had to be stopped due to some mechanical defects. He went in search of a mechanic, and by the time he returned the vehicle was not seen at the spot parked. That incident, according to him, occurred, at the mid night of 14.08.1999. Next morning he approached the police, and enquiries were made through a police constable to trace out the missing vehicle. Such enquiry was conducted going over to the excise office and, then, after ascertaining from the police constable who was the driver of the vehicle, and identifying the revision petitioner as such, he was taken into custody by the accused and subjected to torture. He was later produced before the Magistrate, after implicating him in grave offences under the Abkari Act shaping out a case that while transporting 30 litres of arrack in his vehicle he was arrested with the vehicle by the excise officials. In view of the third degree methods of torture, he had to undergo hospitalisation was his further case against the excise officials, to implicate them for the grave offences alleged. As already stated, after investigation, the Circle Inspector of police laid the charge indicting the accused of the aforesaid Crl.R.P.No.1488 OF 2011 3 offences. In the trial, on the materials placed, which consisted of PW1 to PW12 and Exts.P1 to P9 for the prosecution, and Ext.D1, a copy of the judgment rendered in the case against the review petitioner, who was prosecuted for abkari offences, and convicted, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the prosecution case and the accused are not guilty of any of the offences imputed and, accordingly, they were acquitted. 3. Going through the judgment of the Sessions Judge with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I find the case advanced by the revision petitioner to implicate excise officials for the offences imputed even at its face value lacks credibility. Admittedly, in the case registered by the excise officials against him, he was produced before the Magistrate on the evening of 14.08.1999, and, then remanded to judicial custody. There is nothing on record to show that even at that point of time he had raised any complaint against the present accused, leave alone the case advanced by him in the case to prosecute them. He continued to be in judicial custody pursuant to the remand order passed by the learned Crl.R.P.No.1488 OF 2011 4 Magistrate in the aforesaid case till 12.9.1999. Complainant giving rise to the prosecution of the accused in the case, it is admitted, was filed only on 17.9.1997. While he was in jail, he was hospitalized and that was on account of the injuries suffered by the highhanded acts of the excise officials was the case of the complainant. Medical record produced in the case indicated that he was hospitalized for ailments of acute gastritis with associate symptoms. Materials indicated that he did not even possess a driving license. That aspect has to be taken note with the case of the revision petitioner that he had attended patrol duty of police, driving the vehicle with a police party, and, then, on return, the excise party signalled him to stop, but he did not heed the signal. This appears to be a case where the police wanted to screen the revision petitioner after his implication in an abkari offence, by registering a crime against the excise officials. Such suspicion cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances presented. Though the learned counsel for revision petitioner has urged that the investigation of the case was conducted in a most perfunctory manner, it is to be stated that complaint, if any, in that regard is highly belated. On the other hand, the facts disclose that even Crl.R.P.No.1488 OF 2011 5 without registering a complaint, if the version of the revision petitioner is to be believed, the police were ready to go with him to various places and even to the excise office to trace out his missing vehicle. That story can be received only with a pinch of salt. I do not find any impropriety in the conclusion formed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that the imputations made against the excise officials to implicate them for grave offences in the case were nothing but an experimental venture to screen defacto complainant / revision petitioner proceeded in the case registered for the abkari offences. Ext.D1 judgment produced by the accused also revealed that, after trial, the accused in the above case, the revision petitioner, was found guilty and convicted of the abkari offences, which, admittedly, was registered at the instance of the accused in the present case. The order of acquittal passed in the case in favour of the accused in such circumstances does not warrant any interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE. dmb