GIRISH CHANDRAN Vs. STATE- REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the seventh accused in a prosecution inter alia under Section 448 read with 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was available for trial as the seventh accused. But after the completion of the prosecution evidence before the final disposal of the case, the petitioner could not continue to appear before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate therefore split up the case against the petitioner. Of the co-accused, one was convicted, others were acquitted, the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant to procure the presence of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has come to this Court now with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked in his favour. He, first of all, submits that the proceedings against him may be quashed. Secondly he contends that in the alternative, the petitioner may be permitted to surrender before the learned Magistrate. He may be directed to be released on bail. The case against him may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate contends that there is no evidence against the petitioner and that the acquittal of the co- accused on the same evidence must entitle him also to acquittal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2006 1 KerLT 552 is not squarely applicable as the prayer is to quash the proceedings after the entire evidence has been adduced.