IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 438 of 2010()
1. ABDUL RASHEED,S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :31/08/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.438 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Second accused in C.C.No.2/2006 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Pattambi
filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as
against him pending before the court as C.C.No.
640/2009. Case of the petitioner is that by
Annexure-A3 judgment, learned Magistrate had
already acquitted the first accused for want of
evidence and in the light of the order of
acquittal, there is no likelihood of a successful
prosecution and it will result only in unnecessary
waste of valuable time of the court and therefore,
the case is to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Prosecutor were heard.
3. Annexure-A3 judgment, by which the first
accused was acquitted, shows that only PW1 was
CRMC 438/10 2
examined and CWs 3, 5 and 7 did not appear in spite
of coercive steps and in such circumstances,
finding that there is no evidence to convict the
first accused, he was acquitted. Annexure-A3
judgment does not enable the petitioner to quash
the proceedings against him. This Court cannot hold
that the witnesses, who could not be examined
before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.2/2006,
will not be available for examination if petitioner
is tried or that they will not depose against the
petitioner. In such circumstances, the case cannot
be quashed as sought for.
4. Learned counsel then submitted that as a non
bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner,
a direction be issued to the learned Magistrate to
consider the application for bail on the date of
surrender.
5. When an accused surrenders and files an
application for bail, Magistrate is expected to
pass orders on the application without delay. I
CRMC 438/10 3
find no reason to believe that Magistrate is
unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions
of this Court or the Apex Court or that Magistrate
will not act in accordance with law. Hence, no
direction is warranted.
Petition is disposed.
31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv