IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4609 of 2008() ------------------------- C.P.NO.144 OF 2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SATHYAN, THATTASSERIL HOUSE, KODUMON MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): STATE:COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4609 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner was allegedly found to be in possession of wash. He allegedly took to his heels and could not be arrested. His name is revealed in the seizure mahazar itself. It is submitted that final report was filed and cognizance was taken of the offence under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate in response to summons received. The petitioner was not granted bail. He was remanded to custody. He continues in custody. According to the petitioner, denial of bail to him is unjustified. Following the decision in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KLT 748] he must have been granted bail. He hence has come before this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to issue appropriate direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. It is further submitted that he has come to this Court because the final report is liable to be quashed on other grounds also. The petitioner contends that he was not available at the scene. He further contends that the entire quantity of Crl.M.C. No.4609 of 2008 2 contraband article has not been made available to the court. Illegally a portion has been taken as sample and the rest of it had allegedly been destroyed. 3. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion and shall not encumber the records with any findings now, which may cause difficulties later on to the parties. Suffice it to say that none of the reasons urged are sufficient according to me to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's grievance that the final report deserves to be quashed cannot also be accepted. 4. The other grievance that bail has been rejected in violation of the dictum in Sreekumar v. State of Kerala (supra) shall be complained of before the appropriate court - before the Sessions Judge or the bail bench of this Court. I am not persuaded to agree that invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C any direction under Section 439 Cr.P.C can or ought to be granted. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needles to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to move the appropriate court for grant of bail. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-