IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4189 of 2008() ------------------------- EXCISE CR.NO.32/08 OF CHITTAR EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOMARAJAN, EDAPRA PUTHEN VEETTIL,PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHITTAR RANGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4189 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that when an excise party reached the house of the first accused, who is admittedly the father-in-law of the petitioner herein, he was found to keep in his possession wash - material for illicit distillation of liquor. He was apprehended and seizure was effected. In the course of the investigation - even at the stage of preparing the seizure mahazer, information was allegedly revealed to the detecting officials by the first accused that it was a joint activity of the first accused/father-in-law and the petitioner/son-in- law. Accordingly, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. Investigation is in progress. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no justification in the course adopted by the excise officials of arraying the petitioner as the second accused. No formal confession statement of the first accused has been recorded. In these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma which follows the action of the officials in arraying the petitioner as an accused. It is prayed that the extraordinary Crl.M.C.No.4189/08 2 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. I am afraid, the contention cannot be accepted now. Whether the alleged statement given by the first accused that it was a joint activity of the father-in-law, son-in-law duo or whether both or either of them is involved is a matter which must be investigated into and truth ascertained. At the moment and with the available inputs, even assuming that a formal confession statement of the first accused has not been recorded, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked to interdict an investigation. After all, an investigation is an attempt to ascertain the truth. It cannot possibly be said that there is no material prima facie available to justify an attempt to ascertain the complicity of the petitioner. Available indications point to such complicity and I am in these circumstances satisfied that this petition only deserves to be dismissed. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the justifiability of the possible indictment of the petitioner. I have only chosen to take the view that there is no warrant for the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) Crl.M.C.No.4189/08 3 jsr Crl.M.C.No.4189/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008