IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4179 of 2010()
1. MUJEEB, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOOZA,
... Petitioner
2. MUHAMMED ALI @ ALI, AGED 33 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY S.I. OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (RURAL),
For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4179 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners were accused 2 and 5 in C.C.No.
476/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-I, Palakkad. As accused 2, 3 and
5 were absconding, case against them was split up
and re-filed as C.C.No.133/2005. Accused 1 and 4
were tried and by Annexure-B judgment, those
accused were acquitted. Subsequently, when presence
of the third accused was procured, he was tried and
by Annexure-B judgment, he was acquitted. The case
against accused 2 and 5 was split up and re-filed
as C.C.No.180/2009. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
the case contending that in view of the order of
acquittal of the remaining accused and when there
is no investigation as provided under Section 4 of
Arms Act, prosecution for the offence under Section
20 read with Section 27 of Arms Act is not
CRMC 4179/10 2
sustainable and hence, in the interest of justice,
the prosecution is to be quashed.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Prosecution case is that on 15.3.2003 at
about 2.30 p.m., the five accused were found in a
motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-01/A 2266 along with
swords and iron rods, with an intention to commit
robbery of vehicles passing through the National
Highway. Annexures-B and C judgments show that out
of the five accused, three were already acquitted
after trial. It also establish that learned
Magistrate acquitted those accused finding that
there is no evidence to prove that the area was
notified as provided under Section 4 of Arms Act
and when evidence was recorded, Circle Inspector of
Police deposed that he is not aware whether there
is any notification or not. Learned senior counsel
pointed out that in view of that finding, which is
CRMC 4179/10 3
not disputed, even if petitioners are to be tried,
there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution
and therefore, the case is to be quashed. Learned
Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is no
notification.
4. When there is admittedly no notification
issued by the Central Government, regulating
possession of arms in the area, an offence under
Section 20 read with Section 27 of Arms Act is not
attracted. In such circumstances, when there is no
likelihood of a successful prosecution, even if
petitioners are to be directed to undergo the
ordeal of a trial, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.180/2009 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I,
Palakkad is quashed.
29th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv