Kerala High Court
Dated The 3Rd January vs Unknown on 3 January, 2011
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2012/13TH POUSHA ,1933
CRA.No. 52 of 2011
===============
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.339/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II,
PALAKKAD)
ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED
===================
1 RAJENDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.ARUCHAMI
H.NO.136
GANDHI NAGAR
KARAMADA
METTUPALAYAM
COIMBATORE DISTRICT.
2 SREEJESH, AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O.THOTTASSERI APPU
THOTTASSERI VEEDU
THEKKEDESOM VILLAGE
CHITTUR TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:
=========================
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2012 , THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.A.No. 52 of 2011
----------------------------------------
Dated the 3rd January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the accused in S.C.No.339 of 2010 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track - 2 Palakkad and this appeal is filed challenging their conviction and sentence under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 4.3.2009 at 4 a.m., the accused were found in possession of 8000 litres of Spirit contained in 32 Cans of 35 litres capacity each and transporting the same unauthorizedly from Thamil Nadu in a tanker lorry, driven by Ist accused with A2 as cleaner, bearing registration No. TN 45/AA
-2154. On the basis of the above allegation, crime No.10/2009 for the offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act was registered in the Palakkad Excise Range and on completing the investigation, final report was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-1, Palakkad upon which committal proceedings was instituted and subsequently, by order dated 17.6.2010, the Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-2-:
learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, wherein S.C.No.339 of 2010 was instituted and made over to the trial court for disposal. On appearance of the accused, after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned Judge of the trial court has framed a formal charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and when the said charge read over and explained to the accused, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs 1 to 8 and documents Exts.P1 to P18. Besides that, M.O 1 to M.O 8 were marked and identified as material objects from the side of the prosecution. The accused when questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in the evidence against them. Though no witness was examined from the side of the defence, Ext.D1 was marked. The learned Judge of the trial court has finally found that the accused are guilty of the charge Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-3-:
and convicted them thereunder and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and, in default, they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. It is the above findings, the conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal at the instance of the accused.
3. I have heard Sri P.Vijayabhanu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. To prove the prosecution allegation against the accused, the prosecution mainly depends upon the evidence of PWs 1 and
2. PW1 is the then Excise Inspector of Walayar Excise range, accompanied PW2 at the time of the seizure. When PW1 was examined, he had deposed that in the early hours of 4.3.2009, tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN 45 AA 2154 came through the green channel at Walayar excise check post. According to him, he showed signal for stopping the vehicle and he was told by the driver of the vehicle that the tanker lorry was Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-4-:
empty. According to PW1, as he had obtained confidential intelligence report that spirit was being transported in the tanker lorry, he had examined the GVR of the lorry. According to him, the GVR contained false signature and the seal of the Excise Inspector, who was on duty in the check post at the relevant time and also false seal of the check post. According to PW1, he had examined the tanker through the valve at the top but nothing was seen. Then he got down and the outlet valve at the rear side of the tanker was examined and the said valve was found bolted. PW1 further says that he had opened the bolt and the valve was pulled out for a length of about one metre and thereafter the tanker was examined from the top. PW1 further deposed that, it was then found that white coloured cans were kept in the tanker and thus the cans were taken out. There were 250 cans of 35 litres capacity each and each can contained about 32 litres of liquid each. According to him, on examination of the liquid he was convinced that it was spirit and the witnesses were also Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-5-:
convinced the said fact. According to PW1, totally there were 8000 litres of spirit. Thus, A1 who was the driver and A2 the cleaner of the tanker lorry, were arrested. When PW1 was examined, the prosecution has also marked Ext.P1 arrest memo of A1 and Ext.P2 arrest intimation. Likewise, Ext.P3 arrest memo of A2 and Ext.P4 arrest intimation of A2 were also marked. Ext.P5 mahazar, Ext.P6 property list of thondi articles and Ext.P7 intelligence report were also marked through PW1. PW1 has also identified M.O 1 Nokia mobile of A2, M.O2 series of currency notes, MO3 GVR , M.O4 Registration certificate, M.O5 Tax card, MO6 National permit, MO-7 insurance certificate, MO8 Authorization for national permit. He had also deposed that the cans were marked as 1 to 250 and he had taken 300 ml of spirit as sample in bottles of 375 ml capacity, each from the cans marked as 25, 75, 125, 175 and 225. The sample bottles were marked as 25A, 75A, 125A, 175A and 225A. He had also deposed that labels were affixed on the sample bottles and they Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-6-:
were sealed. The sample bottles were also numbered as 1 to 5. When PW2 was examined he had also gave evidence in terms of the deposition of PW1. PWs 3 and 4 are the independent witnesses but they turned hostile and Ext.P8 is the CD portion of PW3 whereas Ext.P9 is the CD portion of PW4. PW5 is the then village officer of Puthussery village who prepared Ext.P10 scene plan. PW6 is the then Excise Inspector of Palakkad range. According to the prosecution, PWs 1 and 2, after the seizure of the contraband articles, produced the same and the samples, documents and the accused before PW6 who in turn registered Ext.P11 crime and occurrence report. When PW6 was examined, the prosecution has also got marked Ext.P12 property list connected with the seizure of mobile phone of A2, Ext.P3 property list connected with the seizure of currency notes and Ext.P14 property list connected with the sample bottles, 5 in numbers. When PW6 was examined, he had deposed that after preparing Ext.P11, he had produced the accused, the sample bottles and Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-7-:
other documents before the Magistrate of the committal court and the contraband articles were produced before the authorised officer under section 53(a) of the Abkari Act. PW7 is the then Excise Inspector of Narcotic Special Squad who laid the charge and through whom Ext.P15 is the forwarding note, Ext.P16 inventory lists prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise range , Palakkad under section 53(a) of the Abkari Act and Ext.P17 certification of inventory issued by the learned Magistrate got marked. Ext.P18 chemical analysis report is also marked through PW7. PW8 is the then Circle inspector of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad who conducted part of the investigation. These are the evidence and materials referred to and relied on by the learned Judge of the trial court in support of her findings and convicting the appellants/accused.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In support of the above contention, Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-8-:
the learned Counsel has pointed out that the contemporary documents produced and relied on by the prosecution are not reliable as the same lacks bona fides and doubtful. According to the learned counsel, Exts.P1 to P7 including the mahazar do not bear the seal of the court or initial of the learned Magistrate. It is also pointed out that Ex.P10 and P11 do not bear any endorsement of the learned Magistrate and there is no seal and signature of the Magistrate. Ext.P7 Intelligence report and Ext.P11 crime and occurrence report do not bear the date. So, the veracity of the those documents is under doubt. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that as per Ext.P17 which is dated 28.3. 2009, the articles were produced before the Magistrate on 20.4.2009 and therefore, Ext.P17 is vitiated due its contradictory nature. According to the learned counsel, on a perusal of Ext.P16, it would show that the articles were sent to the court on 12.3.2009. If that be so, the same is against the statement that contained in Ext.P17 to the effect that the articles were produced on 20.4.2009. Ext.P6, according to the Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-9-:
counsel, does not bear the date. So the documents, according to the learned counsel, produced by the prosecution and relied on by the court below in support of its findings are not reliable safely. Another point advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that , absolutely there is no evidence that the contraband articles were under safe custody. It is pointed out that Ex.P6 contained no date. After inviting my attention to the deposition of PW6, the learned counsel submitted that PW6 has no specific idea as to when the articles were produced before the court. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that though PW6 claimed that the remaining contraband articles were produced before the Deputy Commissioner, he is not specific regarding the date on which the same were produced before the Deputy commissioner. According to the learned counsel, the endorsement contained in Ext.P12, 13 and 14 shows that those documents were not produced when the accused was produced before the Magistrate but the same were produced before the Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-10-:
court only on the next day. According to the learned counsel, the reason given by the learned counsel for not affixing the seal of the court is absolutely unsustainable. The learned counsel has also pointed out that PW6 in his deposition has not stated the exact date that Ext.P5 mahazar was produced. According to the learned counsel, though PW6 claimed that Ext.P5 was produced on the same day, Ext.P5 does not bear the seal of the court. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the prosecution has not produced the G.D that kept in the excise check post Walayar and the non-production of the G.D is fatal to the prosecution, especially when PW2 says that when the vehicles entered the check post, normally such entry will be recorded in the G.D. According to the learned counsel, in the light of the defence taken by the accused, non-production of G.D will go against the prosecution. Thus it is the contention of the learned counsel that the findings of the court below that, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the allegation against the accused beyond reasonable Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-11-:
doubt, are unsustainable and contrary to the facts and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, strenuously submitted that the remand application filed by PW6 when the accused was produced before the Magistrate, contained the endorsement and the initial of the learned Magistrate and, normally, no court will issue such order in the absence of other documents and therefore according to the learned Public Prosecutor, Exts.P1 to P7 and P10 and P11 documents were produced before the learned Magistrate when the accused was produced before the court. Thus according to the learned Public Prosecutor, all the contentions raised by the defence based upon the absence of seal or initial of the Magistrate on the documents are liable to be rejected. It is the further submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, as rightly observed by the learned Judge of the trial court that, as the accused was produced before the Magistrate after the office hours, there was no occasion to Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-12-:
affix the court seal or dated seal and therefore, the absence of court seal or dated seal of the court, is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case and to interfere with the findings and order of conviction recorded by the trial court.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor, I have perused the judgment of the trial court and the evidence and materials on record.
8. The allegation against the appellants/accused is that they were found in possession of 8000 litres of spirit while they were transporting the same in a tanker lorry through the Walayar Excise Check post and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 55(a) of he Abkari Act. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and in the light of the evidence and materials on record, the question to be considered is whether the trial court is justified in its finding that the prosecution has Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-13-:
succeeded in establishing its allegation against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The charge against the appellant is very serious, particularly considering the huge quantity of contraband article involved in the case. According to the prosecution, the accused illegally transported 8000 litres of spirit from Tamil Nadu to Kerala through the Walayar Excise Check Post and the accused were arrested from the spot along with the contraband article. It is true that when PWs.1 and 2 were examined, they deposed in terms of the prosecution allegation. Thus, though the seizure was at 4.30 a.m. on 4.3.2009, the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate of the committal court only at about 5.20 p.m., on the very same date. Though the remand application is not separately marked, the learned Magistrate has made endorsement on the remand application by putting her initial, no doubt from the above endorsement, it can be safely concluded that both the appellants/accused were produced at 5.20 p.m. on 4.3.2009 before Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-14-:
the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, after ensuring that no allegation against the Police, remanded the accused and for production before the court on 18.3.2009. The remand application bears no date. When PW1 was examined, as I indicated earlier, the prosecution has got marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. It was, PW6 who produced the accused and the documents and samples before the learned Magistrate. Ext.P5 is the mahazar prepared by PW1 with respect to the seizure of the contraband article. Ext.P6 is the property list (thondi article list) and Ext.P7 is the intelligence report. Suffice to say, these documents, though claimed to have produced before the learned Magistrate while filing the remand application and producing the accused, do not contain the initial of the learned Magistrate and the seal of the court. As I indicated earlier, going by the deposition of PWs.1 and 2, it can be seen that they have deposed in terms of the prosecution allegation. But, it is relevant to note that though two witnesses were cited and examined as independent witnesses, they turned hostile. Crl.A.No.52 of 2011
:-15-:
Therefore, there is no independent evidence to support the prosecution case. Therefore, it is for the court to see that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and 6 are free of doubt and any infirmities and the same can be safely acted upon. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that when PW1, an experienced officer, who was then working as Circle Inspector of Excise, had categorically deposed that the crime was detected on the basis of confidential intelligence report received by him. Still then, Ext.P7 intelligence report bears no date. Ext.P6 property list also bears no date. Those documents are also not containing the initial of the Magistrate or any other endorsement made by the Magistrate. The learned Judge says that the accused were produced after the office hours of the court and therefore, that is the reason for the omission to affix the dated seal of the court. Thus, the learned Judge of the trial court is of the opinion that for the above reason, it is to be presumed that the above mentioned documents were also produced before the Magistrate on 4.3.2009 along with the accused as Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-16-:
deposed by PW6. I am unable to accept the above observation and finding. As I indicated earlier, when the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate, PW6 has filed a remand application and in that remand application, the learned magistrate made an endorsement which I indicated earlier. Had the prosecution agency, particularly PW6 produced Exts.P5,P6 and P7 before the learned Magistrate while producing the accused along with the remand application, I am sure that certainly the Magistrate would have endorsed her initial with date in those proceedings. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived is that those documents were not produced before the learned Magistrate at the time when the accused were produced. It may be true that the omission for affixing the court seal in the remand application is for the reason that the accused were produced after the working hours of the court. Still then, the learned Magistrate made endorsement in the remand application and put her initial. The same proceedings would have been adopted by the learned Magistrate, Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-17-:
had these documents were produced along with the remand application. While appreciating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, especially in the absence of any independent evidence, the above defect with respect to the above documents, which I indicated earlier, certainly go against the prosecution. PW6, during his cross-examination, has deposed as follows:-
"...................... Mahazar- seal
. .
............."
He had further deposed as follows:-
" ..................."
The defence put a question which reads as follows:-
"Exts.P1 to P3 & P5 seal-
?
The only answer is ' .' Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-18-:
Ext.P5 mahazar as far as the prosecution is concerned is a very important and contemporary document to prove its allegation against the appellant. But, Ext.P5 does not contain any initial of the Magistrate or the court seal. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that though PW6 has claimed that Exts.P12 to P14 documents were produced when the accused were produced, the stamped date shows that those documents were reached in the court only on 5.3.2009. So, the deposition of PW6 goes against the documents relied on by the prosecution. It is also relevant to note that Ext.P14 is the mahazar with respect to the sample bottles. Those samples as well as Ext.P14 received in the court on 5.3.2009. There is no evidence as to who were the custodian of these sample bottles seized as per Ext.P14 mahazar. No explanation is forthcoming from PW6 for the delay in producing those samples before the court though the delay is only one day. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Ravi v. State of Kerala [2011(3) KLT 353] has held that the prosecution has a duty to prove that it Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-19-:
was the sample taken from the contraband liquor seized from the accused which had reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a fool proof condition. In the very same decision, the Division Bench has held that the production of property before the court without unreasonable delay is also a necessary requirement of law. After considering the scope of Section 34 of the Abkari Act and Section 103(2) of the Cr.P.C., the court has held, what is enjoined by the statute is only that the seizure of the property should be reported forthwith to the Court, but the court has hastened to add that the production of the property before Court (wherever it is practicable) should also take place without unnecessary delay and there should be explanation for the delay when there is delayed production of the property . In the present case, though PW6 has stated that the samples were produced before the court when the accused were produced, Ext.P14 shows that the same reached the court only on 5.3.2009. There is no explanation for the delay. If that be so, after the entrustment of the samples with PW6 by PW1, Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-20-:
there is no explanation or evidence to show that the samples were in safe custody. In the present case, there is no explanation or evidence to show that the samples were under the custody of PW1 or PW6 or in the court.
10. With respect to the remaining contraband article and the safe custody of the same also, there is no evidence. The evidence produced in this regard cannot be safely relied upon. When PW6 was examined, though he had deposed that the remaining contraband articles were handed over to the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad, he is not specific about the date on which the same were entrusted with the officer empowered under Section 53A of the Abkari Act. Exts.P16 and P17 are two crucial documents produced and relied on by the prosecution connected with the disposal of the contraband article. Ext.P16 is the inventory list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Palakkad under Section 53A of the Abkari Act. Ext.P16 is dated 6.3.2009. The first page of Ext.P16 is the forwarding note by which the inventory Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-21-:
was produced before the learned Magistrate. Both the report and the inventory contained the court seal with date and the date is shown as 12.3.2009 though the forwarding note is dated 6.3.2009. The inventory prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Palakkad bears no date. Ext.P17 is the certificate issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. In Ext.P17, there is reference to the report dated 28.3.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Palakkad in Order No.2354 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad dated 28.3.2009. In Ext.P17, the learned Magistrate has stated that the properties involved in crime No.10/2009 and other crimes were produced before the court on 20.4.2009 at 4 p.m. and it is further stated that the Junior Superintendent and the Property Section Clerk of that court assisted the Magistrate in verifying the properties. The prosecution has made no attempt to explain as to how the certificate was issued on 28.3.2009, if the properties were produced on 20.4.2009. So Ext.P17 is not tallying with the case of Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-22-:
the prosecution and as such, the same cannot be acted upon. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, if the contraband articles were produced before the Magistrate as per the inventory as forwarded to the learned Magistrate as per the covering letter dated 6.3.2009, naturally the contraband articles also would have been produced before the court at least on 12.3.2009. But the learned Magistrate in Ext.P17, it is specifically stated that the article are produced on 20.4.2009. Exts.P16 and P17 are contradictory in nature. Therefore, both the documents cannot go together and as such, those documents cannot be relied and acted upon. Thus, on a scanning of the entire evidence of the prosecution, both oral as well as documentary, and other materials, according to me, the finding of the court below is not correct and the same cannot be approved. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the specific contention taken by the defence is to the effect that both the appellants are belonging to different State and they happened to reach at the Walayar Check Post and they were falsely Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-23-:
implicated in the crime connected with an abandoned lorry which contained the contraband article. On evaluating the evidence of prosecution in the background of the defence taken by the accused and especially in the absence of any independent evidence and when the documents relied on by the prosecution is not up to the standard required in a prosecution for such a serious offence, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, certainly the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant. Connected with this, I have no hesitation to observe that the officers involved in the detection and the prosecution , though they were experienced and higher excise officials committed culpable negligence in the prosecution of the case effectively and conducted an unscrupulous and shabby investigation. It is also relevant to note that no effective investigation was conducted to trace out the source of the spirit involved in the case and to identify the owner of the vehicle involved in this case. Therefore, Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-24-:
according to me, it is for the departmental heads to look into the matter and to have an enquiry in the conduct of the prosecution as well as the investigation, so as to prevent such shabby investigation and perfunctory prosecution in the future, especially when the contraband article involved is huge quantity of spirit.
11. In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 7.1.2011 in S.C.No.339 of 2010 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Palakkad and acquitting the accused of all the charges levelled against them and they are set at liberty.
12. As the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment, the appellants are entitled to get released from the jail forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to send a gist of this judgment to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur forthwith for appropriate action.
Crl.A.No.52 of 2011
:-25-:
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary (Taxes Department), Government of Kerala and the Commissioner of Excise for appropriate action.
(V.K.MOHANAN) Judge.
MBS/ Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-26-:
Crl.A.No.52 of 2011
:-27-:
V.K.MOHANAN,J
---------------------------------------------- Crl. A.No.52 of 2011
----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2012 GIST OF JUDGMENT In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 7.1.2011 in S.C.No.339 of 2010 of the court of Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-28-:
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Palakkad and acquitting the accused of all the charges levelled against them and they are set at liberty.
As the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment, the appellants are entitled to get released from the jail forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to send a gist of this judgment to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur forthwith for appropriate action.
(V.K.MOHANAN) Judge.
MBS/ Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-29-:
In the light of the above discussion and findings, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and establish the allegation beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that they have committed the offence punishable under Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-30-:
Section 498A and 306 of I.P.C. and accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial court against them under Section 498 A and 306 of I.P.C. are set aside.
In the result, Crl.A.No.210 of 2011 filed by the first accused is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against him under Section 498 A and Section 306 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. by the trial court vide judgment dated 29.1.2011 in S.C.No.689 of 2004 is set aside and he is set at liberty and consequently, he is entitled to get release from the jail forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.449 of 2011 preferred by the second accused is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the second accused under Section 498A of I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. is set aside and the bail bond executed by her is cancelled and she is set at liberty.
Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. As the appeal preferred by the first accused, i.e., Crl.A.No.210 of 2011 is Crl.A.No.52 of 2011 :-31-:
allowed, acquitting him, he is entitled to get release from the jail forthwith if he is not required in any other case and therefore, the Registry is directed to send gist of this judgment of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thrissur for appropriate action.
(V.K.MOHANAN) Judge.
MBS/