REJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused and he faces indictment in a prosecution under Secs.55 and 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act.

(2.) No recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner. The 1st accused was allegedly found to be in possession of 2 litres of illicit arrack and it is contended that he gave a statement implicating the petitioner herein. The learned counsel asserts that there is no other circumstance pointing to the alleged complicity of the petitioner. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was never arrested. Now he has come to know that a warrant of arrest is pending against the petitioner. Investigation is complete. There is absolutely no necessity to keep the petitioner in custody. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this Court with a prayer that proceedings initiated against him may be quashed.

(3.) Why is the petitioner not appearing before the learned Magistrate and arguing for discharge before the appropriate court? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection in resorting to that course; but submits that the learned Magistrate may unnecessarily remand him in custody for the simple reason that he had not appeared earlier before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate and that in view of Sec.41A of the Abkari Act, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.