IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29153 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- SC.212/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RIYAS BABU, BADARIYA MANZIL, VELOOR KARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, APTS, (HQ) KSEB, VIGILANCE WING, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NATTAKOM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2-4 R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.C.NO.29153 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th October 2009 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to quash S.C.212/2008 on the file of Additional Sessions court, Kottayam or for the alternative to direct the first respondent to pass orders in Ext.P5 petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Government Pleader were heard. 3. It is submitted that S.C.212/2008 is posted for evidence before Additional Sessions court, Kottayam today. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would argue that learned Sessions Judge could not have taken cognizance of the offence at all and when he cannot take cognizance, he cannot try the case or convict the petitioner and therefore, it is to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no justification for approaching this court at this WPC 29153/09 2 belated hour, when the case is posted for evidence. Petitioner had an opportunity to ask for a discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but petitioner did not avail the same. 5. Though a direction is sought in the alternative to dispose Ext.P5, question whether the case is to be withdrawn or not is to be taken by the concerned prosecutor and it is not for Home Minister to whom Ext.P5 petition was filed. In such circumstances, I find no reason to issue a direction to first respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P5. Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions raised herein before the Sessions court, including the contentions that learned Sessions Judge could not have taken cognizance of the offence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.