PRASANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.4 of 2003 of the Pathanapuram Excise Range, registered under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act ("the Act") . The first accused was arrested by the Excise Inspector, and a quantity of about 4 litres of arrack contained in a plastic can was seized from his possession. On the basis of the statement given by the first accused that the can containing arrack was entrusted to him by the second accused, the petitioner was arraigned as the second accused by the Excise Inspector. After investigation, the Excise Inspector submitted final report in Court. After complying with the procedural formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was made over to the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of the Abkari cases, Kottarakkara. The case was tried as S.C.No.33 of 2005. Pending the trial process, the second accused absconded, and so the trial proceeded against the first accused. The case against the second accused was split up and refiled, and it was transferred to the register of long pending case as L.P.No.11 of 2016. The first accused faced trial in S.C.33 of 2005, and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 15.11.2016. The second accused now seeks orders quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that the very substratum of the prosecution case stands lost by the acquittal of the first accused on merits, and that the benefit of all the findings on legal infirmities made by the trial court must be given to the second accused also.

(2.) Annexure-1 is the copy of the judgment of the trial court in S.C.No.33 of 2005. The prosecution records will show that the contraband article was in fact seized from the possession of the first accused, and the Excise Inspector arraigned the petitioner as second accused simply on the basis of the statements of the first accused, that the can containing arrack was handed over to him by the second accused. Anyway, during trial, so many legal aspects were discussed by the trial court, and the learned trial Judge found so many legal infirmities in the prosecution case. The benefit of these infirmities must go to the second accused also. As regards the seal affixed on the sample, and the identification of the properties produced in Court, the learned trial Judge found thus in paragraph</i> 12 of the Annexure-I judgment.

(3.) As regards the inordinate delay in the investigation process, the learned trial Judge found thus in paragraph</i> 14 of the judgment;