SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON A COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT JUDGE, THALASSERY Vs. NOUFAL V.H. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter essentially arises out of Crime No. 515/2002 registered by the Iritty Police Station, Kannur district, against eight accused persons for offence punishable under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The case was later taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur, as Calendar Case, C.C. No. 408/2004. The brief of the prosecution case is that on 26.9.2002 by about 1.05 p.m., accused 1 to 8 were found in possession of two detonators, safety fuse, etc. near Kililyanthara checkpost and the accused had gathered in the spot with the intention to commit an offence and that the accused have thus committed the offence punishable under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The trial in C.C. No. 408/2004 was conducted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur and accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 8 were tried and acquitted as per the judgment dated 28.3.2009. A -2 was absconding at that time and the case against A -2 was split up and re -filed as C.C. No. 191/2009 and later transferred it to the long pending list as L.P.C. No. 12/2010. Later, when A -2 surrendered before the court, his case was re -filed and committed before the Sessions Court as C.P. No. 15/2013 and is now pending on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court No. II. It is also reported that A -4 died and the case against him has thus abated. It was conveyed by the learned District Judge, Thalassery as per letter dated 12.6.2014 to the Registry of this Court that Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is an offence, which is exclusively triable by a court of session and that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case and hence the trial and the consequent judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate on 28.3.2009 in C.C. No. 408/2004 acquitting A -1, A -3 and A -5 to A -8, is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and as such, the trial and judgment of the court are to be treated as non est and void. Though the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery, had initiated revision proceedings in Crl.R.P. No. 30/2013, the same was dropped in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case in John Samuel v/s. State of Kerala reported in, 1985 KLT 902, wherein it was held that the Sessions Court is lacking jurisdiction in that regard in respect of a matter "which otherwise comes to its knowledge" and accordingly, it is pointed out in the aforestated letter dated 12.6.2014 of the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery that only the High Court has power to exercise revisionary jurisdiction in such a case. It is in the light of these aspects that this Crl. Revision proceedings have been initiated on the file of this Court.

(2.) Heard Sri. C. Khalid, learned counsel appearing for R -1, R -3, R -4 & R -7 and Sri. Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, learned Addl. D.G. of Prosecution & Addl. State Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala.

(3.) It is urged by Sri. C. Khalid, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case Sabu v/s. State of Kerala reported in, 2007 (2) KLT 516 :, 2007 (1) KHC 1040, the offence under Sec. 5 of the Explosives Act is triable by the jurisdictional Magistrate's court concerned and therefore, the proceedings initiated on the purported ground that the trial conducted by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction, is erroneous and that therefore the Revision is only to be dismissed.