SURESH S/O SIVADASAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the third accused in a prosecution under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. In the F.I.R registered, only one accused was shown. In the course of investigation, accused 2 and 3 were also arrayed as accused. Initially, the allegation was that accused 1 had committed the offence. In the course of investigation, it is revealed that another person (A2) by name Ponnappan and his nephew (A3) by name Suresh S/o.Sivadasan were also guilty. In the course of the investigation, report was filed to array additional second and third accused. They were thus arrayed as accused. After investigation, final report was filed against three accused persons (A1 to 3). The third accused, Suresh was described as "Suresh S/o. Sivadasan, Puthenkandathil house, aged 25, residing at Kizhakkekkara thekkummuri of Thrikkunnappuzha village. Accused 2 and 3 were shown as absconding. After taking cognizance, attempts were made by the learned Magistrate to get the service effected on the third accused. Summons issued to the third accused was returned with the endorsement that such a person could not be traced. The learned Magistrate called for explanation of the police officer concerned. At that stage, it was reported to the learned Magistrate that there was a mis description in the address of the third accused. It was really Suresh S/o. Sivadasan of Kochuveettil Puthuval of Mahadevikadu Muri of Karthikappalli village. The process issued in that address was served on the petitioner. The petitioner has thereupon come to this Court complaining that he is not the real third accused and that he has now been arrayed as the third accused belatedly by the officials without any justification.

(2.) The counsel points out that initially there were no allegations raised against the petitioner. The petitioner is not the person arrayed as third accused. When the court called for explanation, conveniently the petitioner has been arrayed as the third accused. This is incorrect. This is unjust. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioner. This, in short, is the plea.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned Public Prosecutor has got a statement filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkunnappuzha police station. It is submitted that there is no incongruity or confusion about the identity of the third accused. The third accused is Suresh S/o.Sivadasan, the petitioner herein. It is true that there is confusion about the address of the third accused. The confession statement of the first accused revealed that a neighbour Ponnappan and his nephew Suresh S/o Sivadasan were accused 2 and 3. What is crucial according to the learned Public Prosecutor is the fact that the third accused is described to be the nephew of the second accused. There is no confusion regarding the identity at all though there is a mis description of the address of the third accused. A mountain is attempted to be made out of such a mole hill of inaccuracy of address shown of the third accused. Identity of the person is without any basic dispute. The third accused is the nephew of the second accused who is a neighbour. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the error in not describing the address of the third accused correctly in the initial documents and notwithstanding the return of the summons issued to the third accused in the original incorrect address with the endorsement that such a person does not exist, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may not be invoked, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.