IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2850 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.580/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. K.NAGARAJA, AGED 34, S/O.SUBHA VELICHAPADA, CHARLA HOUSE, SENTHADUKKA, KULUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD. 2. NARESH, AGED 25, S/O.ANAND, KAIKKAMBA JUNCTION, KAIKKAMBA, UPPALA, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWARAM POLICE STATION, MANJESHWARAM, KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2850 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 ORDER The petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.580 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-III), Kasaragod in a prosecution of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for allegedly found in possession of 900 sachets of arrack (the sale of which is restricted in the State of Karnataka) and which were kept in two white plastic sacks in the autorikshaw and registered by the Manjeswar Police as Crime No.170 of 2006, seek to quash Annexure-A2 proceedings of the Additional Sessions Court as per which the case which was posted for judgment was re-opened. 2. This Court called for a report from the Additional Sessions Court. He has sent his report to the effect that when the above case stood posted for judgment, on perusal of the entire records it was brought to his notice that the inventory as well as the photographs prepared by the Assistant Excise Crl.M.C.No.2850/2010 : 2 : Commissioner under Section 53A of the Abkari Act were not marked in the case and then it was to enable the prosecution to mark the same after examination of the Assistant Excise Commissioner that the case was re-opened and it stands posted to 11/8/2010. 3. The inventory relating to the residue of the samples and the photographs were prepared by the Assistant Excise Commissioner under Section 53A of the Abkari Act. Hence, there was nothing wrong in the learned Additional Sessions Court re-opening the case for the purpose of marking the above documents by examining the Assistant Excise Commissioner. The petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness as and when he is examined. The proceedings of the court below are not liable to be quashed for the reasons stated in the petition. This Criminal M.C. is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj