IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4741 of 2010()
1. PRAVEEN KUMAR,S/O.BALAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE ,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :03/12/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4741 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 3rd December, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner was third accused
in C.C.526/2001 on the file of Judicial
First Class Magistrate’s Court-IV,
Kozhikode. As petitioner along with the
second accused was absconding, the case
against them was split up and refiled as
C.C.87/2005. First accusd was tried. By
Annexure-III judgment, he was acquitted
for the offence under Section 482 of Indian
Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on
15/5/1999 first accused, with the
intention to evade payment of tax, went to
the workshop to change chasis number of
Maruti car KL-01.H.1267 and on getting
information, Sub Inspector of Police
Crmc 4741/10
2
proceeded to the workshop. By that time the
vehicle was taken away. On search, it was found
parked on the side of the road at West Hill
Chunkam. On search of the car photocopy of the
registration certificate of another vehicle
was found inside the car. Alleging that first
accused committed the offence in furtherance
of their common intention with accused 2 and 3,
an offence under Section 482 of Indian Penal
Code was committed final report was filed. By
Annexure-III judgment learned Magistrate
acquitted the first accused finding that there
is no evidence to prove that first accused had
used false property mark and prosecution case
is only that copy of registration certificate
of another vehicle and the registration number
of that vehicle was found inside the car.
Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Crmc 4741/10
3
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings now
pending against the petitioner as C.C.87/2005
on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-IV, Kozhikode contending
that as maximum sentence provided for an
offence under Section 482 of Indian Penal Code
is imprisonment upto one year, as provided
under Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure
cognizance should have been taken within one
year and cognizance of the offence was taken
only on 25/9/2001 beyond the period of
limitation and therefore, on that sole ground,
cognizance taken is to be quashed. It is also
contended that in view of the prosecution case,
even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no
likelihood of a conviction as first accused
who was found in possession of the vehicle was
acquitted.
Crmc 4741/10
4
2. Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
3. Section 482 of Indian Penal
Code provides for punishment for using a false
property mark. Under the Section whoever uses
any false property mark shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year or with fine, or
with both, unless he proves that he acted
without intent to defraud. As rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner prosecution has no case that accused
had used the property mark of another vehicle
namely, either the chasis number, engine
number or registration number of another car
which was found in the possession of the first
accused. The only allegation is that first
Crmc 4741/10
5
accused had gone to a workshop to change the
chasis number and the registration number and
getting information Sub Inspector reached the
workshop and then it was disclosd to the Sub
Inspector that ten minutes earlier a person
had approached the workshop to change the
chasis number and he was in his possession copy
of registration certificate of another vehicle
and he had left the workshop. On this
information, Sub Inspector proceeded and found
the car parked on the side of road. It was
found that inside the car there was another
registration number and photocopy of
registration certificate of another vehicle.
Even if this case is accepted and petitioner is
tried, he cannot be convicted for the offence
under Section 482 of Indian Penal Code,
especially when by Annexure-III judgment, first
Crmc 4741/10
6
accused, who alone was found in possession of
the vehicle, was already acquitted. More over,
as pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Section 468(b) of
Code of Criminal Procedure provides period of
limitation, for an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year,
as one year. Under Sub Section 1 of Section
468, no Court shall take cognizance of an
offence of the category specified in sub
section 2 after the period of limitation.
Therefore, when the offence was allegedly
committed on 15/5/1999, learned Magistrate
could not have taken cognizance of the offence
as provided under Section 468 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, after expiry of one year
from 15/5/1999, except by exercising the power
provided under Section 473 of Code of Criminal
Crmc 4741/10
7
Procedure. The final report does not show that
any reason was shown to enable the Court to
exercise the jurisdiction under Section 473 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. In such
circumstances, on that ground also the case
pending against the petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
Petition is allowed. C.C.87/2005
on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-IV, Kozhikode is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.