Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 29 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2763 of 2009()


1. SUKUMARAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.UMMINI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :29/09/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No. 2763      OF 2009
            ===========================

    Dated this the 29th day of September,2009

                        ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.P.No.146/2006 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Karunagappally. Petition is filed under section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 final

report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for

the offence under section 55(g) of Abkari Act

contending that he is a senior citizen aged 75 years

and the final report is filed after a lapse of four

years to wreck vengeance and the report of the

chemical analysis is dated 12.4.2006 after a lapse of

one year and in such circumstance it is not in the

interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. Learned counsel argued that the house from

which the liquor was seized does not belong to the

petitioner and the report of chemical analysis was

obtained after a lapse of one year from the date of

seizure and in such circumstance the case is to be

Crl.M.C.2763/2009 2

quashed.

4. The fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen is

not a ground to quash the offence. There is no exception

for a senior citizen in committing an offence under the

Abkari Act or under Indian Penal Code. The fact that the

report of chemical analyst received after examination,

one year from the date of seizure is not a ground to quash

the proceedings. The question whether the house from where

the seizure was affected belongs to the petitioner or was

in his possession, is a matter for evidence and cannot be

decided in this petition. Petitioner is entitled to raise

all the contentions before the Sessions Court once the case

is committed to that court. Petition can only be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then

submitted that there may be a direction to consider the

application for bail on the date of surrender. If an

accused surrenders and files an application for bail,

Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application

without delay. I find no reason to believe that the

Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the

decisions of this Court or the Apex Court or that

Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no

direction is warranted.

Petition is disposed.

                                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
                                                 JUDGE

Crl.M.C.2763/2009    3

tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.




     ---------------------
      W.P.(C).NO. /06
     ---------------------


         JUDGMENT




     SEPTEMBER,2006