IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3327 of 2010(C) -------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 1039 OF 2010 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- RASHEEDKUTTY, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANJILAYYATHU HOUSE, EDAKULANGARA .P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3327 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.1039/2010 of Karunagappally Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential commodities Act, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-1 FIR contending that the building, from where the articles were seized, though owned by him, was rented out to one Kunjalingam under Annexure-2 and therefore, petitioner cannot be held liable for the articles kept by the tenant and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that Annexure-2 rent deed shows that the building was obtained on rent by Kunjalingam on 26.3.2010 and therefore, petitioner cannot be held liable for possession of CRMC 3327/10 2 the essential commodities kept in that room subsequent to 26.3.2010. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that son of the petitioner was taken to that room and it was in his presence, the articles were seized and at that time, there was no case that the building was rented out to Kunjalingam and therefore, based on Annexure-2, the case cannot be quashed. 5. True, if the building was rented out to a tenant and the building was in possession of the tenant, petitioner may not be liable for the articles kept in the room in the possession of the tenant unless there is evidence to prove that it was at the instance of the petitioner the articles were kept therein. In this petition, it cannot be decided whether Annexure-2 rent deed is genuine and whether the tenant therein has been in possession of the building when the essential commodities were seized on 28.5.2010. These are matters to be investigated by the police and therefore, the case CRMC 3327/10 3 cannot be quashed as sought for. 6. Learned counsel then submitted that a direction be issued to the Magistrate to consider the application for bail on the date of surrender. Considering the facts stated in this petition, when an accused surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders on the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence, no direction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. 31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv