IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4138 of 2003 -------------------------------------- CC.28/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- BINU V.K. @ VINU KUMAR @ REMANAN, S/O. VELUTHAZHE KESAVAN KARUNAKARAN, VELOOTHAZHEY VEEDU, ASSARIKUNNU BHAGOM, MEVIDA P.O., MEENACHIL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.4138 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March 2008 ORDER Petitioners and four others were charge sheeted by Pala Police in Crime No.137/93 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 224, 353 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution case in brief was that the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on April 3, 1993 at about 1 a.m. and in execution of their common object, had committed rioting with deadly weapons, near Purakkattukavu Bhagavathy Temple in Mevidakara. Accused No.1 abused Cws 1 to 3 Police Constables who were on law and order duty in that area. According to the prosecution, the accused had been carrying stones in their hands and they had prevented CW1 to 3 from discharging their official duty. The accused had escaped arrest and run away from the scene. 2. The case came up for trial before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pala in C.C.28/94. It was reported Crl.M.C.No.4138 OF 2003 :: 2 :: before the court that accused no.3 had passed away and accused 1 and 5 (petitioner) were reportedly absconding. Thus, only accused 2 and 4 faced trial. 3. The prosecution examined PW1 to 4 and marked Ext.P1 in the case. 4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had totally failed in proving the charge against the two accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted by judgment dated February 25, 1999, a copy of which is on record as Annexure-A. PW1 the prime witness on the side of the prosecution had admitted before the court that he could not identify the accused who were involved in the crime. PW2 and 3 had turned hostile to the prosecution. PW4 had only attested the scene mahazar. The other witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. CW1 had reportedly died also. It was in the above circumstances that the learned Magistrate had acquitted the two accused who faced trial. Crl.M.C.No.4138 OF 2003 :: 3 :: 5. According to the petitioner, he had left for Saudi Arabia even before he had received summons in the case. He contends that he was not aware of the pendency of the case. According to him, he came back to India only in June 2003. Immediately he filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submits that in the nature of the evidence that was let in by the prosecution in the trial against the two accused, it may be sheer waste of valuable judicial time, if the witnesses are summoned again in the trial against the petitioner. 6. I have carefully perused Annexure-A judgment. I find considerable force in the above contention. But still the petitioner cannot be entirely justified in contending that he is not liable to be tried for the sole reason that the prosecution may not ultimately succeed in the case. But keeping in view the pressure of work in all the criminal courts in the State and also the fact that about 14 years have elapsed after the occurrence, I am persuaded to allow the prayer made by the Crl.M.C.No.4138 OF 2003 :: 4 :: petitioner, but of course on terms. Necessarily the petitioner has to pay cost to the State which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.136/99 (LP 33/01) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pala, arising from Crime No.137/93 of Pala Police Station shall stand quashed on condition that petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost before the trial court on or before July 30, 2008, failing which the proceedings shall continue. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes