George Joseph vs State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The petitioner who is the first accused in Crime. No. 156 of 1998 of Kumily police station preferred the above M.C. u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the final report in C.C. No. 618 of 2010 particularly in the light of Annexure-II and III judgments. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

The above crime was registered on the basis of allegation made by the de facto complainant that his jeep bearing registration No. KL-5F-6847 was stolen, when the same parked at the Periyar Hospital compound at Kumily on the night of 26.07.1998 and thus the accused committed the offence punishable u/s 379 read with 34 of IPC. On completing the investigation the police preferred Annexure-I report arraying 5 persons are accused in the above crime. Accordingly, C.C. No. 276 of 2004 was instituted against the accused five in numbers and finally as per Annexure-II judgment accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted and case against the accused Nos. 1 and 4 was split up. The fifth accused is no more. The trial against the fourth accused proceeded in C.C. No. 26 of 2006 and he was also acquitted by Annexure-III judgment and the case against the present petitioner, who is the first accused, is split up and now pending as C.C. No. 618 of 2010. Now the case of the petitioner is that he is also entitled to get the benefit of Annexures-II and III judgments.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that in view of the finding of learned Magistrate in Annexures-II and III judgments, there is no scope for any fruitful prosecution in case the petitioner is compelled to face the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor also of the view that the learned Magistrate has found in paragraph 26 of Annexure-II judgment, that the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not indicate as to who stolen the vehicle and the oral testimonies of Pws. 2 to 6 do not indicate that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 have got complexity in the commission of the evidence. I have carefully considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. In paragraph 28 of Annexure-II judgment, the learned Magistrate has found that the oral testimonies of Pws 3 and 6 do not indicate that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 have committed theft. Similarly in Annexure-III judgment, the learned Magistrate in paragraph 6 has found that PW 1 has not seen the person who drove the jeep. The learned Magistrate concluded in paragraph 7 that none of the witnesses has seen the accused with the jeep. In the light of the above facts and the evidence discussed by the court below in Annexures-II and III, according to me, the substratum of the prosecution case has gone. Therefore, no purpose will be served in sending the petitioner to face the trial in C.C. No 618 of 2010.

In the result, this M.C. is disposed of quashing Annexure-1 charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 618 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peemade.