PRASANNAN S/O BHANU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the original third accused in Crime No. 76 of 2003 of the Punalur Police Station, involving the offence under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") . According to the prosecution, he was the licensee of the toddy shop No. "T.S. No. 18" at Kalayanadu Junction of Valakode Village, and the prosecution allegation is that at about 6.30 p.m. on 07.02.2003, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the crime were found possessing two litres of arrack for illicit sale at the toddy shop, as the employees of the third accused. After investigation, the Police submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur against three accused, including the licensee, under Section 8(2) of the Act. Pending the committal proceedings, the original second accused absconded. In such a situation, the learned Magistrate committed the case against the original accused Nos. 1 and 3 to the Court of Session. The case was filed as S.C.No. 1051 of 2004 in the Court of Session, and it came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of Abkari Cases, Kottarakkara.

(2.) The original first accused faced trial before the trial court, and the case against the original third accused (the petitioner herein) was split up when he remained consistently absent during the trial process. The prosecution examined three witnesses in the trial court in S.C.No. 1051 of 2004.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, and on a consideration of the legal issues involved, the learned trial Judge acquitted the first accused by judgment dated 24.10.2016, in S.C.No. 1051 of 2004. The case against the petitioner (the original third accused) was later transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P. No. 41 of 2016. Warrant of arrest, being periodically issued from the court, is now pending against the petitioner. He seeks orders from this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that there is no scope to proceed with the prosecution when the very substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost by the acquittal of the first accused, and that continuance of the proceedings against him, in the present circumstances, will be a sheer waste of time.