Kerala High Court
Abdul Gafoor vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024
CRIME NO.754/2010 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 29/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, NILAMBUR
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :
ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, VALLIKKADAN HOUSE,
KARUKAMANNA, PULLIPPADAM PO,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676 542.
BY ADVS.
T.K.AJITH KUMAR
VARNIBHA.T
HARITHA S.
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SRI. T.R. RANJITH (PP)
SMT.HARITHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
Crl.M.C.No.658 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.29/2018 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, arising out of
Crime No.754/2010 of Nilambur Police Station. Originally, there
were three accused in the aforesaid crime. Initially, the case was
registered as C.C.No.44/2011, wherein the petitioner herein was
arrayed as the 3rd accused. Since petitioner absconded, the case
against the first accused in C.C.No.44/2011 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, proceeded, and
by judgment dated 18.02.2016, the said accused was acquitted.
Petitioner seeks the benefit of the acquittal of the first accused.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 25.08.2010, the
accused was found to have hoarded 2527 Kgs. of rice in 27
plastic sacks and 24 jute sacks in the building taken on rent by
the first accused and committed the offences punishable under
Section 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order 1996, r/w Sections 3
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024
and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. Since two of the accused had absconded, the case against them
was split up and refiled as C.C.No.213/2016. In the meantime,
petitioner once again absconded, and therefore, the case against
him was split up and later refiled as C.C.No.29/2018 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur.
4. Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that a reading of Annexure-3 judgment will reveal that
the very substratum of the prosecution case has eroded, and
therefore, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the
prosecution against the petitioner.
5. Sri.T.R.Ranjith, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the
contentions and submitted that evidence can be adduced
independently, including all what was adduced in
C.C.No.44/2011, and therefore, no cause arises for interfering
with the prosecution.
6. On a perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.44/2011 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, this Court
noticed that the witness to the seizure mahazar had, while she
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024
was examined as PW3 denied her signature in the mahazar. The
Investigating Officer, when examined as PW10, deposed that no
one had certified that the rice sold by the accused was ration
rice. The trial court had also come to the conclusion that there
was no evidence from whom or from where the rice had been
procured by the accused. None of the witnesses examined in the
said case supported the prosecution case. Nature of allegations
against the petitioner as well as the other accused, are the same
and the primary ingredient to be proved is that the seized rice
was ration rice. Without any evidence to show from whom and
from where the rice was procured and without any certificate or
material to show that the rice that was seized by the
Investigating Officer was ration rice, the offence against the
petitioner and other accused cannot be made out. It is evident
from a reading of the judgment in Annexuer-3 that the
substratum of the prosecution case, even as against the
petitioner, has been destroyed.
7. In view of the above, no purpose would be achieved in
continuing the prosecution case against the petitioner.
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024
Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C.No.29/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Nilambur, is hereby quashed.
The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/15/02/2024
CRL.MC NO. 658 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE -1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 19.10.2010 IN
CRIME NO. 754/2010 REGISTERED AT
NILAMBUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 754/2010 OF NILAMBUR POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE -3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.44/2011
DATED 18.2.2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT
NILAMBUR.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW5 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -9 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW6 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW7 WITH
READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE -11 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW8.
ANNEXURE -12 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW9.
ANNEXURE -13 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW10.
TRUE COPY
