Kerala High Court
Mathew Philip Aged 29 Years vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 December, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3868 of 2014 ()
---------------------------------------
IN CC 552/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 538/2006 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
--------------------------------------------
MATHEW PHILIP AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. PHILIP, PARANICKAL VEEDU, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE
KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.S.JUSTUS
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ARANMULA POLICE STATION.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3868 of 2014 ()
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN
CRIME NO.538/2006 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION PW1 TO 7 IN CC
NO.204/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC NO.I,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE 3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN CC
NO.204/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC NO.I,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE 4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CRL.MC
NO.2936/2013.
ANNEXURE 5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CRL.MC
NO.2623/2013.
ANNEXURE 6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CRL.MC
NO.2274/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------- NIL
//True copy //
PA to Judge
das
P.UBAID, J.
==========================
Crl.M.C. No. 3868 of 2014
=================================
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2014
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in CC No.204 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. Crime in the said case was registered against four persons under Section 379 IPC r/w Sec.34 IPC, on the allegation that on 15.12.2006, at 4.00am, the four accused took away a bundle of news papers containing 200 dailies of Kerala Kaumudi, and thus caused loss of 1,121/- to the news agent.
2. The accused Nos.1 to 3 faced trial before the trial court and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 09.04.2014 when the prosecution failed to prove the case by any satisfactory evidence or material. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and refiled when he remained consistently absent during retrial. It is now pending as CC 552 of 2014. The 4th accused now -2- Crl.M.C. No. 3868 of 2014 seeks orders quashing the proceedings as against him under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that continuance of prosecution in such a situation, will not serve any purpose.
3. Annexure-III Judgment in CC 204 of 2008 shows that the prosecution did not examine any material witness or any eye witness to prove the alleged incident. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during trial and marked Exts.P1 to P13. PW1 and PW2 stated that they had only hearsay information about the incident. PW1 laid complaint on the basis of information passed to him by PW2. PW3 to PW5 are only witnesses to the Mahazar prepared by the police. The prosecution did not examine anybody to say that he had seen any of the accused taking away the news paper bundle as alleged by the prosecution. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, did not in any manner, incriminate any of the accused. It was in such a situation, the learned Magistrate acquitted the other accused. On a perusal of Annexure-III -3- Crl.M.C. No. 3868 of 2014 Judgment, I find that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case against the petitioner herein, if his case goes to trial. The witnesses examined by the prosecution also cannot say anything more than what they deposed during trial in CC No.204 of 2008. Thus I find that continuance of prosecution will be practically a sheer waste of time. In such a situation the prosecution can be quashed, by applying the guidelines made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in CC No.552 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE das