IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4195 of 2005()
1. C. UPENDRAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/12/2009
O R D E R
A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4195 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009.
ORDER
Petitioner who was a licensee of a toddy shop bearing No.5 of
Konni Excise Range was implicated in Crime No.192/2005 of Konni
Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) and
Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that about 15 litres of
arrack was recovered from near a well situated in the proximity of the
toddy shop. This petition under section 482 of the Code was filed way
back in the year 2005 seeking to quash the FIR.
2. It is pointed out by Sri.K.P.Satheesan, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the crime was registered by the Police initially without
implicating anybody as accused. According to the Police, search was
effected on May 24, 2005 at about 12.15 PM. The Police did not have
a case that any incriminating substance was recovered from the toddy
shop. But the alleged recovery of arrack was made from near a well
situated away from the toddy shop.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that if in fact the Police
had suspected the complicity of the petitioner in the crime at the stage
when the alleged recovery was made, there was no reason why in the
First Information Report the petitioner would not have been arraigned
as an accused. The fact that the investigating officer filed an
additional report after 18 days implicating the petitioner will by itself
show that it was clearly an afterthought. Petitioner has raised a specific
Crl.MC.4195/05 2
contention that he has been implicated in the case at the behest of a
rival toddy shop owner. I refrain from dealing with the above
contention raised by the learned counsel at this stage in view of the
order that I propose to pass.
4. The material available on record will definitely show that
there is some force in the contentions raised by the petitioner inasmuch
as petitioner was not implicated in the crime at the initial stage even
though allegedly some arrack was recovered outside the premises of the
toddy shop. At a later stage petitioner was implicated. There is no clue
as to what prompted the investigating agency to implicate the petitioner
after about 18 days. Anyhow the fact remains that petitioner is now
charged with commission of the offences referred to above.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions submits
that the Police had completed the investigation and laid the charge
sheet before the Court in December 2006 itself. In that view of the
matter, I am of the view that petitioner has to necessarily approach the
trial court and urge all his contentions at the appropriate stage.
6. It will be open to the petitioner to seek for discharge, if so
advised, in which event the court below shall consider the same and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that I
have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the
petitioner
Crl.M.C is closed in the above terms.
A.K. Basheer
Judge.
an.