Kerala High Court
Ali Akbar Alias Nani vs State Of Kerala
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 6813 of 2016
------------------------
SC 16/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO. 158/2004 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
--------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
ALI AKBAR ALIAS NANI,
S/O ABDU RAHMAN, AGED:24 YEARS,
PARAPPURATHU HOUSE,
EDAVANNAPPARA PO, VETTATHUR,
MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
Crl.MC.No. 6813 of 2016
-----------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
A1 A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 158/2004 DATED 21/4/04
A2 A FAIR COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 14/3/2007 IN CRIME NO
158/2004 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION
A3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE SC NO 16/2010 DATED
3/11/2011 ACQUITTING THE 4TH ACCUSED
A4 THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 21/4/2004 PERTAINING TO ALL THE
ACCUSED
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.6813 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
1.The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in S.C.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (ADHOC-I), Kozhikode. He along with the other accused were charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2.According to the petitioner, by judgment dated 3.11.2011 in S.C.No.16 of 2010, the 4th accused in the final report was tried by the Court below and holding that the prosecution had failed in establishing its case beyond doubt, the said accused was acquitted of all charges. The learned Sessions Judge had taken the view that the search and seizure was illegal as it was Crl.M.C.6813/2016 2 carried out in blatant violation of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioner, in view of the acquittal of the 4th accused, the proceedings as against the petitioner herein is nothing but an empty formality. Various precedents are cited by the learned counsel to contend that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not made out.
3.The learned Public Prosecutor countered the submissions of the learned counsel and contended that the allegations are extremely grave as it involved counterfeiting of currency notes and the mere fact that the co-accused was acquitted is no reason to bar the trial in the case of the other accused. It was argued that the petition is without merits and sought for its dismissal.
4. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. A Full Bench of Crl.M.C.6813/2016 3 this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552] have held that the acquittal of some of the co-accused based on appreciation of evidence in their case is no ground to bar a criminal trial as the appreciation by the concerned Judge in a criminal trial is not binding when the latter case is tried in the case of the other co-accused and it is for the learned trial Judge to appreciate the evidence adduced in the latter case. It was conclusively held that acquittal of a co-accused will not preclude the trial of the case as against the absconding accused.
5.In view of the above binding precedent, I am unable to accept the vehement submissions of the learned counsel.
6.When faced with the prospects of the petition being dismissed as one without merits, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the Court below and face trial. It was prayed that necessary directions be issued to consider his application Crl.M.C.6813/2016 4 for bail on the date of surrender . It was also prayed that necessary directions be issued to expedite the trial as well. I find no reason to refuse the said prayer .
7.In the result, it is ordered that if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below and moves appropriate application for bail, after giving advance notice to the concerned prosecutor, the Court below shall consider the same and pass orders on its merits on the date of surrender itself . It is also directed that all endeavor shall be made to take up and dispose of the matter expeditiously, as the crime is of the year 2004. This petition will stands dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE vps