IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4265 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.532/2009 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT (PRINCIPAL), PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, PULIYAPARAMBU, PUDOOR, KODUNTHIRAPALLY, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4265 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the eighth accused in C.P.No. 60/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Palakkad. As petitioner and accused 9, 11 and 20 were absconding, case against them was split up and re-filed as C.P.No.7/2003. Case against accused 1 to 7, 10, 12 to 19 and 21 to 27 was committed to the Sessions Court. It was taken on file as S.C.No.98/2003 and made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad for trial. By Annexure-A21 judgment, those accused were acquitted. When presence of the petitioner was procured later, case against him was committed to the Sessions Court. It is now pending as S.C.No.532/2009 before Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against him contending that in view of Annexure-A21 judgment, whereunder twenty three accused were already acquitted, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a CRMC 4265/10 2 successful prosecution and it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in S.C.No.98/2003, prosecution has let in entire evidence and eighteen witnesses were examined and none identified the petitioner and in the light of the evidence, there is no possibility of any other evidence against the petitioner and therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial. It is pointed out that even if any witness is to identify the petitioner from court, such evidence, in the absence of test identification parade, cannot be accepted and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. Finally, it is pointed out that the incident occurred fifteen years back and at this stage, petitioner may not be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I cannot quash the cognizance taken or the case pending against the CRMC 4265/10 3 petitioner on any of the grounds. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), based on the judgment acquitting the co-accused, case against the absconding accused cannot be quashed as sought for. The question of identifying the petitioner did not arise in S.C.No. 98/2003, as he was not facing trial in that case. It is not for the court, exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to appreciate the evidence and find out whether in the absence of a test identification parade, evidence to be let in by the prosecution, regarding the identity, is to be accepted or not. They are matters to be considered by the trial court at the time of evidence. Petition is dismissed. 15th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv