IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1642 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 22/1996 OF THE KURAVILANGADU EXCISE RANGE) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------- JIMMY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, OONNUKALLEL HOUSE, MRALA, KARINKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KURAVILANGADU, OFFICE OF THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KURAVILANGADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1642 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the third accused and faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Altogether there were seven accused persons. Contraband article was allegedly found in a premises which the petitioner had allegedly taken on lease. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The accused who were available stood trial. The case against the first accused stood quashed. The case against accused 2 and 5 abated. Accused 6 and 7 faced trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner and the fourth accused was split up and refiled and the same is pending now as C.C.No.68/06. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent and he is entitled to get the proceedings against him quashed by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the acquittal of the co- accused as per judgment in C.C.No.86/1999, the prosecution against the petitioner has no legs to stand on. The case against the petitioner may be quashed, it is prayed. Crl.M.C.No.1642/08 2 2. I find no merit in the contention raised. In the trial against the co-accused, the prosecution was not obliged to adduce evidence to incriminate the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is allegedly a person who had taken the premise on lease. The mere fact that, in the trial against the co- accused, crucial and incriminating evidence against the petitioner has not adduced, is no reason for this court to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to have the proceedings against him quashed. The position of law has been made crystal clear with the pronouncement of the judgment of the Full Bench in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)]. I do not in these circumstances find any merit in the prayer for quashing of proceedings. 3. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may, however, hasten to observe that the the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the trial court for the purpose of claiming discharge or acquittal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.1642/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.1642/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008