IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2955 of 2008()
1. E.O.LAWRENCE, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner
2. P.A.THANKAMMA, W/O.LAWRENCE,
Vs
1. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, DISTRICT SUPPLY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.2955 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated 15th March 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused in
C.C.1049/2008 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam taken
cognizance for the offence under Section 3
read with Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act and clause (5) of Kerala
Rationing Order and Essential Commodities
(Maintenance of Accounts and Display of
Prices and Stocks Order), 1966 on
Annexure-A complaint filed by first
respondent, District Supply Officer.
Allegation in Annexure-A complaint is that
on 24/4/2008 at 12.30 p.m, first respondent
along with rationing Inspectors, reached
the godown in the possession of first
Crmc 2955/08
2
accused and owned by M/s.T.A.Jose and
Company, Mundoor, Thrissur. First petitioner
is the Managing Partner and second
petitioner is his wife, who is also one of
the partners of that firm. According to
first respondent search was conducted as
complaints were received that Star Traders
is engaged in the business of ration
articles illegally and the room in the
possession of first accused, where Star
Traders is being run in building bearing
door No.10/171 consisting of two rooms.
From there it was found that 48 sacks
containing 50 Kgs.each having a total
weight of 24 quintal of boiled rice, 37.62
quintal of raw rice in 76 sacks consisting
of 49= Kg. per sack and 12.87 quintal having
49= kgs. of boiled rice and 1 quintal of
Crmc 2955/08
3
wheat consisting of two sacks, 27 quintal of
boiled rice in 36 sacks of 75 kgs. each and
13.5 quintal of raw rice in 18 sacks
consisting of 75 Kgs.each and 57.75 quintal
of raw rice in 77 sacks weighing 75 Kgs. per
sack and 417 sacks of raw rice each weighing
50 Kgs., with total weight of 208.50
quintal and 118 sacks of paddy weighing
48.15 quintal were seized. Complaint is
lodged against the petitioners also on the
allegations that first accused was engaged
in storing the ration articles in violation
of order, in the building owned by the
petitioners and building was permitted to
be used by the petitioners and they thereby
committed the offence. Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure contending that continuation of
Crmc 2955/08
4
the proceedings against the petitioners is
an abuse of process of the court as they
were implicated for the sole reason that
they are the owners of godown, when final
report itself shows that godown was in the
possession of the first respondent
exclusively.
2. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners pointed out that except the
allegation that petitioners are owners of
the godown, from which ration articles were
seized, there is no material to connect the
petitioners with the ration articles seized
or the offence committed and hence, the
case is to be quashed. It was also argued
that there is no material, whatsoever to
connect petitioners with the ration articles
seized, especially when the building from
Crmc 2955/08
5
where it was seized was in the possession of
first accused exclusively.
3. Annexure-A complaint does not
show that first respondent has a case that
the building, from where ration articles
were seized, was in the possession of the
petitioners exclusively or was in the joint
possession of the petitioners and first
accused. On the other hand, the very case is
that first accused was in exclusive
possession of the building, though the
building was owned by the petitioners. When
possession of building was transferred to
first accused, first accused alone could
be tried and convicted for keeping any
material, like ration articles or any other
contraband articles in that room, on the
basis that the building belongs to the
Crmc 2955/08
6
petitioners. That exactly is the case
herein. Though sixteen witnesses were shown
in Annexure-A complaint, purpose of
examination of the witnesses do no show that
any of the witnesses is to be examined to
prove that the building from where ration
articles were seized was in the possession
of the petitioners. On the other hand, it
is the specific case of the prosecution that
the building was in the exclusive
possession of the first accused. Therefore,
in the absence of any material to show that
there was a criminal conspiracy or a common
intention with the first accused for the
petitioners, to keep the ration articles in
that room, petitioners cannot be prosecuted.
Even if petitioners are to be tried
consequent to the lack of materials, there
Crmc 2955/08
7
is no likelihood of a successful
prosecution. In such circumstances, it is
not in the interest of justice to continue
the prosecution as against the petitioners.
Petition is allowed. C.C.1049/2008
on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kunnamkulam as against the
petitioners, accused 2 and 3, is quashed. It
is made clear that the case as against
first accused can be proceeded.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.
