IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2373 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.891/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. C.L.CHARLEY, S/O.LONAPPAN, CHEMANNUR, TIRUR DESOM, KILLANNUR, TIRUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. C.L.JOLLY, S/O.C.L.CHARLEY, CHEMANNUR, TIRUR DESOM, KILLANNUR, TIRUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2373 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.253/2005 of Viyur Police Station and now pending before the J.F.C.M Court-I, Thrissur as C.C.No.891/2005, for offences punishable under Sections 126, 135 and 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 341, 363 and 506 of IPC, seeks to quash all proceedings against him. Cognizance of the offences in this case was taken by the learned Magistrate on the police report filed in the year 2005 at a time when the police were not having any power to investigate the offences or file a final report under the Act. The power of the police to file a police report came to be conferred on them only with effect from 15.6.2007. Hence, the cognizance taken on the police report is bad in the light of the decision of this court in Crl.M.C.No.2180/2010, A.K Chacko and others v. T.A Mohandas. Resultantly, the proceedings before the J.F.C.M Court-I, Thrissur are quashed. Since the offences under IPC are also allegedly committed as part of the same transaction, they cannot have any independent legs to stand on. It is made clear that this order will not be a bar for the prosecution of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the procedure established by law. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb