The second accused is the petitioner herein. He along with the first accused was charge sheeted in CC.No.323/1996 for offence punishable under sections 342, 323, 324 and 427 r/w section 34 IPC. The first accused faced the trial before the court below in CC.No.323/1996. He was acquitted by judgment dated 2.8.2000, evidenced by Annexure-A1. The case against the petitioner was split up and refiled as CC.No.13602/000. The petitioner herein has now approached this court with the Crl.M.C on a premise that in the light of the acquittal of the first accused by judgment as Annexure-A2, the entire edifice on which the prosecution case was built up has been broken and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. The learned counsel invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the judgment wherein it is stated that in spite of several opportunities granted to the prosecution, Crl.M.C.No.747 of 2017 2 they did not produce any witness to substantiate the prosecution case. Consequently the evidence was closed and the first accused who had faced the trial was acquitted. The learned Public prosecutor on instructions submitted that this judgment was not subject matter of any appeal or revision and has become final and conclusive.
2. In the nature of total lack of evidence adduced by the prosecution before the court below, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. Hence the Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.
3. However, it is pertinent to note that the incident happened in the year 1995. The first accused faced the trial in CC.No.323/1996 and was acquitted by judgment dated 2.8.2000. The petitioner herein contends that he was employed in Saudi Arabia and hence he could not attend the court below. He has approached this court after a long period of 17 years, to seek quashing of the proceedings. Evidently, the matter against him was split up long back. In the light of above, I am satisfied that Crl.M.C.No.747 of 2017 3 the petitioner herein has contributed to the delay in the judicial proceedings, for which the cost is liable to be imposed on him.
In the result, the Crl.M.C will stand allowed and all further proceedings in CC.No.1360/2000 will stand quashed on condition that the petitioner herein deposits a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the KELSA, Ernakulam within a period of one month from today and produce receipt in compliance.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge