IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3047 of 2008()
1. SANEESH IKAL, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner faced indictment as the 1st accused in a
prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 324
r/w 34 I.P.C. Altogether there were 4 accused persons. All of
them stood trial. The prosecution evidence was closed. But the
petitioner was not available for 313 examination. He started
absconding after that date. On the common evidence adduced
before court against all the accused, the co-accused were found
not guilty and acquitted as per judgment dated 23.06.08. The
petitioner was not available from the stage of 313 examination.
The case against him was split up.
2. The case has now been transferred to the list of Long
Pending Cases. Coercive processes have been issued against the
petitioner. At this stage the petitioner has come before this Court
with a prayer that the proceedings against him may also be
quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 2
3. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that absence of the petitioner was not wilful
and was on account of reasons beyond his control. At any rate,
the entire evidence against the petitioner has been adduced by
the prosecution. No further or better evidence can or need be
adduced. The evidence against the petitioner had also been
closed. So the findings are rendered in favour of the co-accused
on the basis of the same evidence on which the culpability of the
petitioner has to be ascertained. It having already been held that
the said evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused
persons, the petitioner is entitled to derive benefit or advantage
of those findings. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that there
is no necessity to compel the petitioner to face the trauma of
continued prosecution. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be
invoked and the proceedings against the petitioner may be
quashed, it is prayed.
4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer. The
learned Public Prosecutor submits that all possible evidence
against the petitioner had also been adduced before the court
below.
Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 3
5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am
satisfied that notwithstanding the dictum of [Moosa v. Sub
Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552], the petitioner can be
given the benefit or advantage arising from the findings rendered
in Annexure-A2 judgment of acquittal against the co-accused. On
merits, the accused had secured acquittal and there is no reason
to deny the petitioner alone of the advantage of such findings in
favour of the accused.
6. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) The surviving prosecution against the petitioner as
C.C.No.518 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class, Taliparamba is hereby quashed;
iii) It is made clear that proceedings under Section 446
Cr.P.C, if any, pending before the learned Magistrate against the
petitioner and his sureties shall continue and be disposed of in
accordance with law.
7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C. No.3047 of 2008 4