IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 225 of 2007()
1. M.K.SUNDARAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/02/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.225 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution under the
provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that
a vehicle-a Uno car was used by the two accused persons to illicitly
transport the contraband liquor without any legal authority. The
vehicle was attempted to be stopped. It was not stopped. After a
chase, the vehicle was stopped. But the driver took to his heels and
no one could be arrested.
2. Investigation allegedly reveals that the vehicle originally
belonged to a registered owner, who expired prior to the date of
detection of the crime. After the death of the deceased, the vehicle
was allegedly repossessed by the petitioner as the Managing Director
of the financier, who had entered into the agreement of hire purchase.
Thereupon, secret chambers were allegedly built in the car by the two
accused persons as per prior concert between them. They had
misused the vehicle for illicit transportation of contraband articles
violating the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. This in short is the
allegation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been arrayed as an accused without any sufficient
reason. There is no specific and forthright statement as to whether
Crl.M.C.No.225 of 2007 2
the vehicle has been repossessed after the death of the deceased-
registered owner and what has been done with the vehicle after such
alleged repossession if any. In the absence of satisfactory explanation
forthcoming, at this stage of the proceedings, I am of opinion that it is
not necessary for this Court to delve deep into the nature of the
contention regarding the ownership and misuse of the vehicle. It is
certainly for the petitioner to raise appropriate contentions to claim
discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Even the mere possibility of the
accused being entitled to discharge or acquittal at later stages of
trial, cannot and need not persuade this Court to invoke powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to a premature termination a prosecution
validly instituted. I am not persuaded to agree from the nature of the
facts and circumstances which have presently been brought to my
notice that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or deserve to be invoked.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. But I
may hasten to observe that the dismissal of the Crl.M.C will not
fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all necessary contentions
before the appropriate court at the appropriate stage to claim
discharge/acquittal in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.225 of 2007 3