NAVAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is accused No.13 in S.C.No.1668 of 2009 on the files of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam. This criminal revision petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the charge framed against the revision petitioner in the said Sessions Case. The revision petitioner along with 15 co-accused are facing indictment for offences punishable under sections 55(a), 57A, section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act read with Rule 7 of the Abkari Rules and sections 120B, 302, 307 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(2.) S.C.No.1668 of 2009 arose from crime No.357 of 2007 originally registered at Kunnikode Police Station. After its registration three more cases were registered as crime Nos.358, 359 and 360 of 2007 in respect of the incident in question and later all those cases were consolidated as one crime viz., crime No.357 of 2007. The incident that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime occurred on 28.8.2007. On that day, consumption of toddy from T.S.No.14 of Avaneeswaram in Pathanapuram Excise Range caused the death of three persons and also caused grievous hurt to 17 persons namely CWs 3 to 19. Going by the accusation, in furtherance of the common intention and criminal conspiracy hatched intoxicating drug was manufactured by adulteration of toddy with rectified spirit and diazepam and such adulterated and poisonous toddy was found in possession and in transit and also in concealed possession in a marshy land. The consumption of such manufactured intoxicating drug caused the aforesaid calamity. After registering the aforesaid crimes and after its consolidation as crime No.357 of 2007 investigation was conducted and on its completion, final report was laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Kollam. It is now pending as S.C.No.1668 of 2008 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam.

(3.) The revision petitioner/accused No.13 filed a petition under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his discharge and the same was dismissed by the trial court. After its dismissal charge was framed against all the accused including the revision petitioner. Though the revision petitioner has stated that the application for discharge filed by him was dismissed the copy of the said order was not produced along with this petition. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not stated in the revision petition as to when the same was dismissed and whether it was dismissed as per a separate order and evidently, the details relating such an order are conspicuously absent in this revision petition. At the same time, evidently, the petitioner has taken up specific grounds to contend that he is entitled to get discharge under section 227, Cr.P.C and specific relief relating discharge has also been sought for. Obviously, the petitioner has also raised grounds and sought relief relating the grievance against the framing of charge. The charge framed against the petitioner and the other accused has been produced along with this petition. At the outset it is to be noted that if an application for discharge filed by an accused is dismissed invariably charge has to be framed. Evidently, charge was framed against the revision petitioner/accused No.13 and also against accused 1 to 12 and 14 and 15. A perusal of the charge framed against the revision petitioner and others produced in this revision petition would reveal that the charge was framed against them as hereunder:-