IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 299 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ (CR.NO.36/2009 OF BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE) ...... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- RAJESH P., S/O.KUMARAN, PANDARAVEEDU HOUSE, ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, BADIADKA EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.299 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of March,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.R.36/2009 of Badiadka Excise Range registered under Annexure I crime and occurrence report. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure I mahazar contending that there is absolutely no material to show that it was the petitioner who was carrying the can seized in the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the Case Diary. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not arrested by the Excise Party and he was falsely implicated based on the Crl.M.C.299/2010 2 mahazar prepared and no statement was recorded from any of the witnesses stating that it was the petitioner who was carrying the can or who ran away from the spot leaving the can and in such circumstances the case against the petitioner is to be quashed. 4. The Case Diary shows that seizure mahazar was prepared at the spot. The contemporaneous record shows that seeing the excise party, a person who was found holding a can, left the can and ran away. Though some among the excise party followed him, they could not apprehend that person. It is thereafter the mahazar was prepared. The mahazar shows that witnesses had disclosed the identity of the person who ran away and it is based on that identity, petitioner was implicated. True,the Case Diary does not contain any statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the mahazar is attested by the two witnesses. That mahazar shows that the witnesses Crl.M.C.299/2010 3 have disclosed the identity. In such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get Annexure I crime and occurrence report quashed as sought for. The question whether petitioner was in fact the person who was carrying the can and ran away leaving the can, is a matter for investigation. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006