Shahabas.K vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14890 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                     CRL.MC NO. 3106 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 332/2021 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS
                 ACT CASES), VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 & 7:

1         SHAHABAS.K, AGED 24 YEARS, OCC - LABOURER, S/O ABDUL
          NASAR, KUNNOTH VEEDU, CHERUKATTOOR AMSOM DESOM,
          MANANTHAVADI TALUK, WAYANAD DIST.

2         UMA M, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O MANIKANDAN M, KADUCHIRA,
          PATTANCHERY AMSAM DESAM, CHITOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST.

          BY ADVS.
          BIJU ANTONY ALOOR
          K.P.PRASANTH
          ARCHANA SURESH
          T.S.KRISHNENDU
          JINSON JACOB
          SIDHARTH K.S.



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

1         THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031

2         THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
          THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 141



          P.P.SRI.RAMESH CHAND




     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 3106 OF 2021             2



                                ORDER

Challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial

Court under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the accused

came up under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the reason that

there is no occasion for granting two months time for

completition of the investigation and to submit the final

report. Though the request is for one year, what is

granted by the trial court is only a breathing time of

two months, so as to verify the entire investigation by

the lawful officer and to finalize the same. There is no

sufficient reason, much less any reason, for exercising

the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is

within the jurisdiction of the trial court to exhaust the

remedy provided under Section 36(A)(4) in proper cases.

What is ordered by the learned Sessions Judge strikes a

balance. As such, Crl.M.C. fails, it deserves only a

dismissal. I do so.

The Crl.M.C. is dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3106/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VADAKARA IN CRL.M.P.NO.332/2021 DATED 02/07/2021

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED ON 29/06/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED ON 30/06/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS