Mansoor M vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 8318 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945

                  CRL.MC NO. 5466 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 59/2018 OF JUDICIAL
     MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III (FOREST OFFENCES),
                         NEDUMANGAD

PETITIONER/S:

          MANSOOR M
          AGED 43 YEARS
          MIRZAN MANZIL, KUNDALAMKUZHI, KOCHUVILA P.O,
          PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695563

          BY ADV M.R.SARIN

RESPONDENT/S:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 5466 OF 2023

                                     2



                                  ORDER

The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure ("the Code") for the sake of brevity.

2. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in C.C No. 59/2018 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Forest Offences),

Nedumangad. In the aforesaid case, he is facing prosecution for having

committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 r/w Section 34

of the IPC. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No. 523/2010 of

the Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2010 at about 9

pm., the petitioner, with the other accused, in furtherance of their

common intention, wrongfully restrained CW1 and attacked him, causing

injuries.

4. In the final report, four persons were arrayed as the

accused, and the petitioner herein is the 2nd accused. As the petitioner

failed to appear before the trial court, the case against accused Nos. 1,

3, and 4 were proceeded with. By judgment dated 27.02.2018 in

C.C.No.84/2013, the accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4, were found not guilty and

were acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code. The case against the

petitioner herein was split up and refiled. CRL.MC NO. 5466 OF 2023

5. It is on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused that this

petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the

substratum of the case against the petitioner has been shattered.

6. Sri. Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

has relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in Moosa v. Sub

Inspector of Police1, Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala2, Jalalu Rajan

and Anr v. State of Kerala3 and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of

Kerala4 and it was urged that the continuance of proceedings against

the petitioners herein would serve no purpose.

7. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. I have gone through the Annexure-A2 judgment of acquittal

rendered by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after

meticulous analysis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion

that the accused were entitled to acquittal under Section 248(1) of the

Code. The court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to let in

any convincing evidence to link the accused with the crime. As held by a

three-Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of

Police5, though the reasoning of the judgment contained or

2006 (1) KLJ 349

2013 KHC 336

2013 KHC 177

2011 (2) KHC 812

2006 (1) KLT 552 CRL.MC NO. 5466 OF 2023

appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not

grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost, is an

exception to the above rule.

9. I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served

by directing the petitioners herein to undergo the ordeal of a trial at this

stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste

precious judicial time, which can be used for more productive work.

Furthermore, no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution

during the previous trial. In that view of the matter, I am of the

considered opinion that this Court will be well justified in invoking the

powers under Section 482 of the Code and in quashing the proceedings.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report in

Crime No. 523 of 2010 of the Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram,

and all further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as

C.C.No.59/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Forest

Offences), Nedumangad, are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs CRL.MC NO. 5466 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5466/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER AS CC NO 84/2013 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR THE TRIAL OF FOREST OFFENCES, NEDUMANAGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRIME NO 523/2010 OF PALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.

84/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR THE TRIAL OF FOREST OFFENCES, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDATED 27.02.2018

Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW1