AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Petitioners were accused 2 and 5 in C.C. No. 476/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-
I, Palakkad. As accused 2, 3 and 5 were absconding, case against them was split up and re-filed as C.C. No. 133/2005. Accused 1 and 4 were
tried and by Annexure-B judgment, those accused were acquitted. Subsequently, when presence of the third accused was procured, he was tried
and by Annexure-B judgment, he was acquitted. The case against accused 2 and 5 was split up and re-filed as C.C. No. 180/2009. This petition
is filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that in view of the order of acquittal of the remaining accused and
when there is no investigation as provided u/s 4 of Arms Act, prosecution for the offence u/s 20 read with Section 27 of Arms Act is not
sustainable and hence, in the interest of justice, the prosecution is to be quashed.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
Prosecution case is that on 15.3.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., the five accused were found in a motor car bearing Reg. No. KL-01/A 2266 along
with swords and iron rods, with an intention to commit robbery of vehicles passing through the National Highway. Annexures-B and C judgments
show that out of the five accused, three were already acquitted after trial. It also establish that learned Magistrate acquitted those accused finding
that there is no evidence to prove that the area was notified as provided u/s 4 of Arms Act and when evidence was recorded, Circle Inspector of
Police deposed that he is not aware whether there is any notification or not. Learned senior counsel pointed out that in view of that finding, which is
not disputed, even if Petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and therefore, the case is to be quashed. Learned
Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is no notification.
When there is admittedly no notification issued by the Central Government, regulating possession of arms in the area, an offence u/s 20 read
with Section 27 of Arms Act is not attracted. In such circumstances, when there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, even if Petitioners are
to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed.C.C. No. 180/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Palakkad is quashed.