SREEJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in C.C. No.828 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally along with ten others (who faced trial in C.C. No.983 of 2002 of that court) for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the strength of the final report in Crime No.261 of 2002 of Chavara Police Station. Case is that in furtherance of their common intention petitioner and others trespassed into the Godown of Primo Pipe Factory, Chavara on May 05, 2002 at about 11.30 p.m. and committed theft of alloy moulding pipes. Some of the accused absconded and accused Nos.1, 2, 4 7, 10 and 11 faced trial in C.C. No.983 of 2002 and that resulted in Annexure-A2, judgment acquitting the said accused under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Since petitioner was abroad case against him was re- filed as C.C. No.828 of 2009. In this petition, petitioner prayed that proceedings against him may be quashed. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is absolutely no material on record to show involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident and in the circumstances trial of petitioner is nothing but a farse. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials placed before me.

(2.) ANNEXURE-A1 is the FIR in Crime No.261 of 2002. The mahazar stated to be prepared by the police on May 24, 2002 at about 10.00 a.m. for alleged seizure of the vehicle on which stolen articles were loaded is appended to ANNEXURE-A1, FIR. ANNEXURE-A3 is the final report along with the statements of witnesses cited by the prosecution. It is seen from ANNEXURE- A2, judgment that accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 were acquitted under Sec.248(1) of the Code. P.W.1 examined in the case is an attester in Ext.P1, mahazar for the alleged seizure of the vehicle involved. He did not support the prosecution and stated that he had not seen the alleged seizure. P.W.2 also did not support the prosecution. P.W.3 is the Security Officer of the Factory. He was cited to identify the stolen articles. I have gone through ANNEXURE-A3, final report and statements of witnesses. There is no case for the prosecution that petitioner was seen anywhere near the seen of occurrence or place of seizure. Nor could I find any material from the statements of witnesses to implicate petitioner in the alleged incident. When the material produced against petitioner is 'nil' there is no reason why he should be asked to face the trial. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. ANNEXURE-A3, final report in Crime No.261 of 2002 of Chavara Police Station, cognisance taken thereon against petitioner and further proceedings in C.C. No.828 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally against petitioner are quashed.