IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2485 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- U. VENUGOPALAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. UKKARA NAIR, CHARAVU HOUSE,KOTTOOR.P.O, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE AND AGGRIEVED: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION - 6716121. 2. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. AMBUTTI NAIR, 403, 1, MULIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD - 676 121 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R2 SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2485 of 2011(C) APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME No.251/2011 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION.(WITH TRANSLATION) ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR OF SWORD, DATED 05.06.2011. (WITH TRANSLATION) ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASI OF POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION DATED 10.06.2011 RECORDED BY THE DY.S.P., KASARAGOD. (WITH TRANSLATION) ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF UNNIKRISHNAN, CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, BEDAKKAM POLICE STATION DATED 10/06/2011 RECORDED BY THE DY.S.P, KASARGOD. (WITH TRANSLATION) ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ASHOKAN, POLICE DRIVER, ATTACHED TO THE C.I., ADHUR POLICE STATION DATED 11.06.2011 RECORDED BY DYSP, KASARGOD. (WITH TRANSLATION) ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.06.2011 WRITTEN BY THE DY.S.P., KASARAGOD TO THE S.I. OF POLICE ADHUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY BALAKRISHNAN DATED 29.07.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 2485 of 2011 . ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2011. ORDER The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.251/2011 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod. The crime was registered alleging offence under Section 27(1) of Arms Act and Section 506(ii) IPC. With regard to the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent (complainant) that being near relatives they have settled the matter and so respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing the complaint with regard to that offence. Hence in the light of the settlement arrived at further proceedings as regard Section 506(ii) IPC can be quashed. 2. Other offence alleged to have been committed is under Section 27(1) of Arms Act. Learned counsel for petitioner points out the incongruity in the seizure of the sword and the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. The records would show that the sword was in that particular police station and from there it was subsequently seized as per a seizure mahazar. It may be true that the sword reached the Crl.M.C..No.2485 /2011 2 police station, having been seized from the accused. But no document is there to show that the sword was seized from the possession of the accused. The subsequent seizure of the sword from the police station, for having handed over the same by the police to the officer who seized it cannot connect the accused with the sword. It appears the ASI who seems to have seized the sword did not prepare any record with regard to the seizure of the sword. It is also seen that proceedings were initiated against the delinquent police officer. But so far as the accused is concerned; there is no document to connect the sword with the accused. Hence further proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act also cannot be sustained. In the result, further proceedings in the above said crime will remain quashed. It is made clear that this will not affect the departmental enquiry if any initiated against any of the officers. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, (Judge) Kp/-