The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in CC No.204 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. Crime in the said case was registered against four persons under Section 379 IPC r/w Sec.34 IPC, on the allegation that on 15.12.2006, at 4.00am, the four accused took away a bundle of news papers containing 200 dailies of Kerala Kaumudi, and thus caused loss of ₹ 1,121/- to the news agent. 2. The accused Nos.1 to 3 faced trial before the trial court and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 09.04.2014 when the prosecution failed to prove the case by any satisfactory evidence or material. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and refiled when he remained consistently absent during retrial. It is now pending as CC 552 of 2014. The 4th accused now -2-
Crl.M.C. No. 3868 of 2014 seeks orders quashing the proceedings as against him under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that continuance of prosecution in such a situation, will not serve any purpose.
3. Annexure-III Judgment in CC 204 of 2008 shows that the prosecution did not examine any material witness or any eye witness to prove the alleged incident. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during trial and marked Exts.P1 to P13. PW1 and PW2 stated that they had only hearsay information about the incident. PW1 laid complaint on the basis of information passed to him by PW2. PW3 to PW5 are only witnesses to the Mahazar prepared by the police. The prosecution did not examine anybody to say that he had seen any of the accused taking away the news paper bundle as alleged by the prosecution. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, did not in any manner, incriminate any of the accused. It was in such a situation, the learned Magistrate acquitted the other accused. On a perusal of Annexure-III -3-
Crl.M.C. No. 3868 of 2014 Judgment, I find that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case against the petitioner herein, if his case goes to trial. The witnesses examined by the prosecution also cannot say anything more than what they deposed during trial in CC No.204 of 2008. Thus I find that continuance of prosecution will be practically a sheer waste of time. In such a situation the prosecution can be quashed, by applying the guidelines made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in CC No.552 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE das