IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3715 of 2008 ------------------------- CC.476/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSERS/ACCUSED 13,14 :- ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHAMEER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O KUNHAMMED, THEKKEPPURAM, AJANOOR VILLAGE, POST MANIKOTH, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. SAJEER, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O RAZAK , KOLAVAYAL, THEKKEPPURAM, AJANOOR VILLAGE, POST MANIKOTH, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BEKAL, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3715 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 13 and 14 in a prosecution for offences punishable inter-alia under Section 32 of the PDPP Act and Sections 332, 353 and 334 read with Section 149 IPC. Some of the co-accused were tried, found not guilty and acquitted. Petitioners were not available for trial. Hence the case against them has been split up and re-filed as CC 332/08. Petitioners are two of the three accused in that split up case. The petitioners pray that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the surviving prosecution against them. 2. What is the reason? Except the acquittal of the co- accused and no other grounds are urged. Called upon to explain how in the light of the decision of Full Bench in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552], petitioners can claim any benefit or advantage on the basis of acquittal of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners only submits that the petitioners may be given an opportunity to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek discharge/acquittal. Their application may be directed to be considered on merits, in accordance with Crl.M.C. No. 3715 OF 2008 2 law and expeditiously on the date of surrender itself in accordance with the dictum in Alice George Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1) KLT 339]. 3. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice’s case. It is not necessary to this Court in every subsequent case to issue direction under Section 482 Cr.PC to subordinate the Magistrate to see the dictum. Every court must do the same and if there be non-compliance; the aggrieved has the avenue to challenge it. I have no reason to resume that the said dictum will not be validly considered by the Magistrate in the instant case. He must do the same. In the result, this petition is dismissed with the above observation. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb H/o. Crl.M.C. No. 3715 OF 2008 3 Crl.M.C. No. 3715 OF 2008 4