IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1687 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.139/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ JAYAN GOPINATH, S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, RESIDING AT CHAKKUVILAPAZHAYIKKAL KOYIKKALETHU VEEDU, KARZHMA PADINJARE MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1687 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.196/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur. He was originally second accused in C.C.139/2001. As he was absconding, the case as against the petitioner and first accused was split up as C.C.196/2007 and case as against third accused was tried and on the evidence he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. That conviction was challenged before Additional Sessions court, Mavelikkara in Crl.A.533/2007. Under Annexure-III judgment the conviction was set aside and third accused was acquitted. Second accused filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to declare that principle of issue of estoppal is applicable to the case pending against petitioner, in view of Annexure-III judgment and therefore case as against petitioner is to be CRMC 1687/2009 2 quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that there is a finding in Annexure-II judgment that offence is not committed and that finding would operate as issue estoppal in the trial of the case against the the petitioner and therefore, it is to be declared that subsequent trial would be barred by the principle of issue estoppal. Principle of issue estoppal cannot be applied as against the court on the ground that one of the accused was tried and acquitted on the evidence let in that case, when absconding accused is being tried later. Therefore, on that ground case cannot be quashed as sought for. 4. Question whether there is evidence as against petitioner is to be decided in the case based on the evidence recorded. Based on the judgment acquitting 3rd accused on the evidence let in n that case earlier, the case as against petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings on that ground also cannot be allowed. 5. Learned counsel then submitted that CRMC 1687/2009 3 there may be a direction to the Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously within 25 days, as petitioner has to return to Gulf where he is employed. If the petitioner files an application before the Magistrate for early disposal, after surrender, learned Magistrate to dispose the case without delay. Learned counsel then submitted that there may be a direction to consider the bail application on the date of his surrender. When a petition is filed for bail after surrender, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. In such circumstances, I find it not necessary to issue any direction as the Magistrate will act in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.