IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2505 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.442/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------- MATHEW FRANCO, S/O.FRANCO, MARIYALAYAM HOUSE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 31. 2. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2505 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 ORDER The petitioner who is the third accused in Crime No.120 of 1999 of Kollam East Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act for allegedly stocking toddy mixed with Arrack in toddy shop No.16 of Kollam Excise Range of which the petitioner is one of the joint licensees seeks to quash Annexure-I final report and S.C.No.442 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam on the ground that the cognizance of the offence has been taken on the strength of a report filed by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who was not an abkari officer duly empowered to file the final report. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor. Even assuming that the detection of the offence by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was in his capacity as the station officer and covered by the decision of the learned single judge (P.S.Gopinathan, J.) in Joy Vs. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT Page 20), the fact Crl.M.C.No.2505/2010 : 2 : remains that the investigation of the case was conducted by the A.S.I. and the final report was also filed by the A.S.I. If so, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench report in Subash Vs. State of Kerala (2008(2) KLT 1047) the cognizance taken was clearly bad. The proceedings in S.C.No.442 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam shall stand quashed. This Criminal M.C. is allowed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj