Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 15TH MAGHA 193 Crl.MC.No. 59 of 2013 () ------------------------ CC.NO.440/1997 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 109/1989 OF KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/4TH PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ ABDUL KALAM, S/O.ASSANARUKUNJU, KOCHUPUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, T. K. M. COLLEGE P.O, PEROOR, KARIKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.59/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.109/1989 OF KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT ANNEX II COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.217/1992 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KOLLAM ANNEX III COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.217/1992 DATED 12 5/1997 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,KOLLAM RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J.
------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.59 of 2013 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2013 ORDER
The issue involved in this case is no more res integra. The petitioner herein was the 4th accused in C.C.No.440/1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, whereon he was indicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 462, 467, 471 and 473 of the IPC and read with provisions under Raw Cashew Nuts (Marketing, Transporting and Fixation of Minimum Prices) Act, 1981. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure I FIR and Annexure II Final Report. The contention of the petitioner is that two of his co- accused who stood the trial and were acquitted as per judgment in C.C.No.440/1997 and as against another co-accused the case was abated on account of his death. I am afraid that cannot be a reason for interfering with the proceedings and quashing Annexures I and II as prayed for, in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2006(1) KLT 55.(F.B.). it was held therein that judgment of Crl.M.C.No.59 o”
2. acquittal of a co-accused is no bar for trial against the absconding accused. In such circumstances, necessarily the petitioner has to face the trail. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in such circumstances, submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to surrender before the trial court and to move an application for bail. It is further submitted that, in view of the position obtained there may be a direction to expedite the proceedings.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned public prosecutor.
3. In the light of the position and submissions referred above it is ordered that the petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam on or before 2.3.2013. In case the petitioner surrenders and moves an application for bail the same shall be considered preferably on the same day itself. Taking into account the fact that the co-accused in C.C.No.440/1997 were already acquitted it will only be proper to expedite the proceedings in C.C.No.217/2012. In fact, it was on account the fact that the Crl.M.C.No.59 o”
3. petitioner was absconding that the case against him was split up and later, re-filed as C.C.217/1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may also be permitted to move an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal appearance. It will be open to the petitioner to move an application before the trial court for that purpose. In case such an application is filed by the petitioner appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to that prayer of the petitioner. C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE. dlk