SAINUL ABID@SAINUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the pending criminal proceedings against him.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was arrayed as the 2 nd accused in C.C.No.523 of 1998. The 1st accused expired in the course of trial and the case against the said accused stood abated. In the midst of the trial, after examination of PWs 1 to 7 was over, the petitioner went abroad in search of employment and hence, the trial was proceeded with against accused Nos. 3 and 4. They were found not guilty and were acquitted of all charges by Annexure-A1 judgment. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there were gross discrepancies in the evidence tendered by the eye witnesses. The injuries sustained by accused were also not explained. As the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt against the co-accused, it would only be futile to insist that the petitioner should undergo the ordeal of a trial, contends the learned counsel.

(3.) Alternatively, he would contend that after the acquittal of the co-accused, he had surrendered before the Court below and the case against him was taken on file as C.C.No.157 of 2007. A counter case was registered against the de facto complainant and others which was also pending before the learned Magistrate. The said case was also being simultaneously tried. According to the learned counsel, after the petitioner had appeared in C.C.No.157 of 2007, two more witnesses were examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. After questioning the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code, a witness was examined on the side of the defence. Thereafter the petitioner again absconded and the trial had to be stopped midway. The accused in the Counter case was acquitted of all charges on 13.06.2016. The case against the petitioner was again removed to the list of long pending cases. Later the petitioner surrendered before the learned Magistrate and he was released on bail. The case was renumbered as C.C.No.138 of 2019 and is still pending. He prays that the petitioner has not been heard by the learned Magistrate and seeks for issuance of necessary directions to the court below to grant him an opportunity of hearing before pronouncing the judgment.