IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3513 of 2008()
1. K.MURUGAN, S/O.KANNAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. EASWARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHURULI,
3. S.MURUGAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/09/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3513 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners faced indictment as accused 7, 11 and 12
in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sec.27 of the
Kerala Forest Act. The co-accused, who faced trial, have been
found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure-I judgment.
The case against the petitioners and A9 was split up and re-
numbered.
2. The petitioners have now come before this Court with
a prayer that the surviving prosecution against them may also
be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
3. This application is opposed.
4. The decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police
(2006 (1) KLT 552) lays down that an absconding co-accused
Crl.M.C. No.3513 of 2008 -: 2 :-
cannot claim any benefit or advantage from the fact that the co-
accused, who faced trial, have been found not guilty and
acquitted on the basis of the evidence tendered in such case
against them. In such prosecution, the State/the prosecution
has no obligation whatsoever to adduce evidence against the
absconding co-accused. In fact, a perusal of Annexure-I reveals
that it is on the basis of an omission to produce certain
documents that the said case ended in acquittal. Nothing stops
the prosecution from producing the relevant documents in the
surviving prosecution against the petitioners. The petitioners
cannot claim any advantage from the fact that such documents
have not been produced before court in such earlier prosecution
against the co-accused.
5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I
may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not
in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to take all
necessary and appropriate contentions in the prosecution
against them. I have only chosen to take the view that the
prosecution does not deserve to be quashed invoking the
jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that there may be a direction that the
applications for bail to be filed by the petitioners when they
Crl.M.C. No.3513 of 2008 -: 3 :-
surrender before the learned Magistrate may be considered on
merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of
surrender itself following the dictum in Alice George v. Deputy
Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). I am satisfied
that no special or specific directions need be issued in this
regard. Every court must comply with the same.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/