IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3589 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRMP.321/2010 of SPL.COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA. CRIME NO. 245/2010 OF BALUSSERRY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3. ----------------------------------------------- MUJEEB,S/O.OOMMER,AGED 26, CHEPPALA HOUSE ADIVARAM P.O,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.245 OF 2010 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3589 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 28th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in Crime No.245/2010 of Balusserry Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 20 (b)(i) and 8(c) of N.D.P.S.Act filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and further proceedings contending that the case is foisted and the petitioner was not possessing any Ganja as alleged. According to the petitioner, he is an autorickshaw driver and on the evening of 9/4/2010 a person carrying a plastic bag had travelled in his autorickshaw to Balusserry. When the autorickshaw reached Balussery, police party showed sign to stop the vehicle. At that time the passenger ran Crmc 3589/10 2 away throwing the plastic bag which was seized by the police and he was taken into custody and the case was foisted and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the bail order passed by this Court in B.A.2654/2010 establishes that learned Public Prosecutor had submitted before the Court that the autorickshaw was seized and produced before the Magistrate and the prosecution case, as seen in Annexure-A1 FIR as well as seizure mahazar, petitioner was found carrying a plastic bag containing Ganja standing on the side of the road and finding the police party Crmc 3589/10 3 he tried to ran away and he was restrained and ganja was seized and if that be so, autorickshaw has no relevancy at all and the fact that autorickshaw was seized justifies the case of the petitioner and falsifies the prosecution case. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that autorickshaw was seized subsequently on the confession made by the petitioner that he had taken Ganja in that autorickshaw. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the final report has already been submitted before the Court on 2/8/2010, before filing of this petition. When the final report has already been submitted before the Court, remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the final report or seek an order of discharge from the concerned Court. Granting liberty to challenge the final Crmc 3589/10 4 report or to seek discharge, petition is disposed. In view of the submission of the learned counsel that Annexure-A2 complaint was submitted before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in view of the contentions raised by the petitioner that he is only a driver of the autorickshaw and the Ganja was carried by a passenger in that autorickshaw, it is for the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct a proper enquiry on the allegations in Annexure- A2. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.