P.Sankaranarayanan vs The State Rep. By on 27 March, 2015

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

P.Sankaranarayanan vs The State Rep. By on 27 March, 2015

Bench: C.T.Selvam

       

  

   

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27.03.2015

CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5292 of 2015
and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015

P.Sankaranarayanan 					     .. Petitioner

           .. Vs ..

1.The state rep. by
  The Inspector of Police,
  Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
  Nagercoil,
  Kanyakumari District.
  (Crime No.391 of 2013)
2.P.Pauldurai		                         .. Respondents

	 Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in Crime No.391 of 2013
on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and to quash the same insofar as petitioner.

		
For Petitioner		: Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi
For 1st Respondent 	: Mr.K.Anbarasan
		   Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
- - - - -

:ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.391 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for first respondent.

3.This petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.391 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent for offence under Sections 4(1)(a)(aaa) & 14(A) of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (Shops and Bars) Rules 2003 r/w 11 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10653 of 2014 dated 27.06.2014 records the following:

"3.The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that even according to the FIR, only a car was intercepted and 2 to 4 brandy bottles were found in possession, however, the names of the petitioners are included in the FIR, as if, they are also committed the offence.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that though the names of the petitioners are in the column of known accused, based on the confession of A2, the name of the petitioners have included.

5.This Court fails to understand how the names of the petitioners are found in the accused column. Therefore, on the face of the record, prima facie case is made out, which is liable to be interfered. In the result, the case in Crime No.391 of 2013 is hereby quashed in respect of these petitioners are concerned and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed."

4. The petitioner stands of similar footing and he is entitled to equal treatment.

5.This Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.391 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District stands quashed in respect of the petitioner. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 stand closed.

27.03.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sj To

1.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

C.T.SELVAM, J.

sj CRL.O.P.(MD)No.5292 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 27.03.2015

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court