NIDHISH KUMAR S/O. NEELAMBARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING Annexure G Charge sheet, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is the 3rd accused in CP No.157/2005 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Kottarakkara, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. C.P. No.157/2005 is the committal proceedings instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottarakkara, on the basis of the final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ezhukone police station on completing the investigation in crime No. 318 of 2003 of Ezhukone Police Station. The allegation against the accused therein is that they have committed offence punishable under Section 8(1)(2) of the Abkari Act. Against the above Charge and all proceedings, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 6 -10 -2003 at about 8.30 p.m.the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakara received information that a Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.KL -07/AF 7537 met with an accident and is lying overturned at a place called Kallumpuram from the Kollam - Chenkotta National Highway No.208 and that spirit is kept in it and, accordingly, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakara and party reached the spot by about 8.45 p.m. and on inspection of the said vehicle resulted in the recovery and seizure of 10 cannas each filled with about 35 litres of spirit, from the said vehicle. The detailed inspection of the vehicle led to the seizure of tax token issued from the Sub R.T.O. office, Perumbavoor, attested copies of the registration certificate, the duplicate of the permit, insurance certificate etc., with respect to the vehicle along with a pocket diary and a cell phone. All those articles were seized under a mahazar. The documents seized revealed the name of the R.C. owner of the vehicle as one Jayakumar. According to the documents and the allegation, the pocket diary and the mobile phone are belonging to the 2nd accused. As the vehicle was not in drivable condition, the same was brought to the station with the help of another vehicle and the Circle Inspector of police suo motu registered crime No.318 of 2003 at about 11 p.m. Annexure A is the seizure mahazar and Annexure B is the FIR. According to the police, at the time of the accident, apart from the driver, there were two other occupants in the vehicle and all of them ran away from the spot after the accident. Subsequently, investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ezhukone and on completing the investigation, he had filed the final report, a copy of the charge sheet is produced along with this Crl.M.C. as Annexure G. On receiving Annexure G final report, the court has taken cognizance and instituted committal proceedings as C.P. No.157/2005 as the case is triable by a Sessions Court. It is the above Annexure G Final report and the committal proceedings to the extent it is against the petitioner is sought to be quashed in these proceedings.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the bald allegation in the charge that the petitioner is involved in the procuring and transporting spirit which is seized under mahazar, there is absolutely no materials or evidence, either oral or documentary, to support and substantiate the allegation. It is also submitted that apart from making allegation that there is a sale letter in favour of the petitioner with respect to the vehicle, there is no document or any other material to substantiate the allegation. In effect, according to the counsel, absolutely, there is no evidence or materials to connect the petitioner with the charge that the petitioner was in possession, ownership or in control of the vehicle, either at the time of seizure or at any time prior to that. Therefore, According to the counsel, the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused was falsely implicated for the first time in the above case only on 23 -3 -2005 and hence, according to the petitioner, there is long lapse of one year and 6 months. It is also alleged that the petitioner was implicated because of the undue influence exerted by the C.I. of Police, Adoor who was in inimical terms with the petitioner on the S.I. of police, Ezhukone who investigated the case and laid Annexure G Charge. It is also the case of the counsel for the petitioner that he was never arrested or questioned by the police and he was implicated as an accused only at the time of filing the charge sheet. Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire prosecution documents and the statements of witnesses, produced along with Annexure G charge are accepted as such, without any challenge, the said materials do not make out any offence or a prima facie case against the petitioner/3rd accused.