IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 922 of 2010() ------------------------ SC.659/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): A8: ------------------------------- AJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR KATTUKULAM, TOWN WARD, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTOM. BY ADV. MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 922 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused No.8 in S.C.No.659/2003 now pending as L.P.No.28/06 on the file of Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I) Thiruvananthapuram. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner, contending that by Annexure- B judgment dated 6.12.2005 accused Nos.1 to 7 were acquitted after refiling the case against accused Nos. 8 to 10 and subsequently by Annexure-C order, tenth accused was also discharged and in such circumstances, even if the petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction and therefore the case as against the petitioner is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by a Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) an order of acquittal as against the co-accused, is not a ground to quash the case against the absconding accused and that judgment can only be looked into Crl.M.C.No.922/2010 2 to find out who are all the parties therein and whether prosecution ended in conviction or not. When one of the absconding accused was subsequently discharged, I find no reason to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as sought by the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and seek an order of discharge. The learned counsel submitted that non-bailable warrant is pending. It is up to the petitioner to file an application for bail. I find no reason to believe that the learned Sessions Judge is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that he will not act in accordance with law. Hence, no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, (JUDGE ) vps Crl.M.C.No.922/2010 3 Crl.M.C.No.922/2010 4