Kerala High Court
Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2016
Author: A. Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 421 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
CRIME NO.2011/2016 OF CHADAYAMANAGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
SUKUMARAN,
AGED:82 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAN,
ROHIN MUKKU, ELAMAD VILLAGE,
KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.)
SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH
SRI.ATHUL SHAJI
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
--------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
(REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE,
CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
Crl.MC.No. 421 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
------------------------
A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 24/10/2016 IN CRIME NO.
2011/2016 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION
A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST DATED 24/10/2016 IN CRIME
NO.2011/2016 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION
A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 25/5/2016 IN FAVOUR OF THE
1ST PETITIONER
A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DATED 18/1/1996
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16/12/2016 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, KADAKKAL BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE
-----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.421 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2017
O R D E R
Petitioners approached this Court seeking quashment of Annexure A F.I.R, registered by Chadayamangalam Police for offences punishable under Section 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 286 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Prosecution allegation borne out from F.I.R is that the accused persons were possessing gun powder and other articles used for fancy fire works enlisted in Annexure B search list, thereby they have committed the aforementioned offences.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relying on Rule 7 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 contended that the first petitioner Crl.M.C No.421 of 2017 2 being the licensee is entitled to possess that much quantity. That apart, Annexure C license would show that he was in to this trade for a long time. Charging of offences under the Explosive Substances Act against the petitioners, who are holding valid license, is without any legal basis is the contention of the learned counsel.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the quantity of certain fire works was excessive than permitted and that is why the case was registered.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the first petitioner is a licensee and the second petitioner is a relative and a worker of him, I find prosecution of the petitioners for the aforementioned offences is an abuse of the process of the court.
Annexure A F.I.R and all proceedings in Crime No.2011 of 2016 of Chadayamangalam Police station are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD
amk JUDGE