PALLIYALI MOIDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - accused No.26, faces indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, for the offence punishable under Sec.3 of the P.D.P.P. Act. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangady. The alleged incident had taken place on 25/5/95. Final report was initially submitted on 5/6/96. It was returned. Thereafter, it was filed on 22/11/2000. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner has a further submission that it was returned on 22/11/2000 also and finally, it was submitted on 27/11/2000. Let the controversy be as it is. Cognizance was taken and the case was registered as C.C.No.218/2000 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi. That case was later transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The principal accused in the case - Abdul Nazar Madani, is not available for trial and the matter is dragging on on that ground.

(2.) The petitioner has not entered appearance before the learned Magistrate so far. He has now come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. He prays that the proceedings against him may be quashed.

(3.) What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance taken is in violation of the statutory provisions relating to the limitation under Chapter- XXXVI of the Cr.P.C.