IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2169 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.90/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------ PALAKKA PALIYALI ALI MUHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEEN, AKKARA HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2169 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.353 and 341 of the IPC. 2. The alleged incident took place on 28/4/93. The FIR was registered only on 11/5/93. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed and cognizance was taken in 2005. The petitioner was not available for trial. His wife/the 2nd accused, stood trial. She was found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner, at long last, appeared before the learned Magistrate and has now come before this Court with a plea that the prosecution against him i.e., surviving prosecution, may also be quashed inasmuch as the prosecution against his wife had ended in acquittal. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No.2169 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner contends that the continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner will serve no useful purpose and the interests of justice demands that the prosecution against him is quashed. 3. I am afraid, in the light of the Full Bench decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), this plea cannot be accepted. I have been taken through the judgment in the trial against the co-accused/wife. There is no finding that no incident had taken place at all. The benefit of doubt appears to have been conceded to the wife of the petitioner on the ground that there was no proper identification. I am certainly of opinion that the petitioner cannot take advantage of such findings in Annexure-A4 – judgment of acquittal of the co-accused, to claim any benefit or advantage for himself. It is by now trite that an absconding accused cannot insist on any advantage or benefit on the basis of the findings rendered by the trial court in a judgment against the co- accused. More so, in the instant case where the ground on which the benefit of doubt has been conceded to the co-accused has nothing to do with the complicity alleged against the petitioner. 4. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits Crl.M.C. No.2169 of 2008 -: 3 :- about the acceptability or the correctness of the findings in the judgment rendered in the trial against the co-accused. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions in the trial before the learned Magistrate which is to follow against him. I have only chosen to take the view that the proceedings do not deserve to be quashed by invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of the case as the incident which had taken place in 1993. The request appears to be legitimate. The petitioner can make a request before the learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal and appropriate orders must be passed in that petition by the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.2169 of 2008 -: 4 :-