IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 578 of 2007()
1. M.K.PRADEEPAN, S/O.BALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/03/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 578 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 7th accused. He, along with the co-
accused, faced allegations, inter alia, under Sections 3 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act and under Section 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The
co-accused stood trial. But the petitioner was not available for trial.
After the trial, the co-accused were all acquitted. The petitioner has
now come before this Court with the prayer that powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner.
2. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the prosecution against the co-accused it has come out
clearly that there is no evidence against the petitioner and there can
be no evidence against him. The defacto complainant was not able to
identify the accused persons, even though he did speak of an incident
in which he suffered injuries. The other eye witnesses, i.e. PWs. 3,
4 and 6 did not support the prosecution case. In these circumstances
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner
Crl.M.C.No. 578 of 2007 2
were compelled to stand the ordeal of trial, it would be nothing but sheer
wastage of time, effort and resources of the State. The same would
unnecessarily result in vexation to the petitioner, it is urged.
3. A Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider this situation
in Moosa v. S.I. of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552). It has been held
categorically in that decision that the mere fact that the co-accused have
secured acquittal in a trial held against them is no reason for the absconding
co-accused to claim any advantage from such acquittal. The complicity of
the petitioner was not in issue in the earlier trial. In these circumstances, I
am satisfied that there is no necessity for invocation of the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. Warrant of arrest is
chasing him. He could not enter appearance on account of reasons beyond
his control.
5. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned
Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under
which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no
reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the
Crl.M.C.No. 578 of 2007 3
application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to
be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this
Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT
339).
3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but subject to the above
observations/directions. I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner
appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned
Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself, unless there are
compelling reasons.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
HO
tm
