The petitioner herein is the original 3rd accused in C.C.No.210/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The prosecution case is that a group of persons including the petitioner herein set fire to a news paper bundle on 8.6.2009. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thalassery came to the scene of incident on getting information, and he saw the burnt bundle of news paper. He suo motu registered a crime under Sections 143, 147, 435 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and after investigation submitted final report against eight persons including the petitioner. The other seven accused faced trial before the learned Magistrate and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 4.10.2013.
2. In C.C No.210/2010 the prosecution examined five witnesses including the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case, and the very material witness cited by the Crl.M.C No.6714 of 2014 2 prosecution. The prosecution also marked Exts.P1 to P3 documents. In the absence of any evidence or material to incriminate any of the accused, the learned Magistrate acquitted the other seven accused. The case against the petitioner herein was split-up and refiled as C.C.No.1779/2013 when he remained consistently absent during trial. Now he seeks orders quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that substratum of prosecution case is totally lost and that continuance of prosecution as against him in the above circumstances will not serve any purpose. Annexure A1 judgment in C.C.No.210/2010 shows that the only material witness examined by the prosecution as PW5 turned fully hostile to the prosecution. The prosecution case is that this witness had in fact seen the actual incident, and he had identified the accused. But in court he stated that he could not in fact identify the persons who set fire to the news paper bundle. It appears that he turned fully hostile to the prosecution in view of a settlement arrived at out of court. Anyway, in the absence of any material, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused. A perusal of the Annexure A1 judgment shows that the substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost, and the prosecution cannot in any manner Crl.M.C No.6714 of 2014 3 improve the case as against the petitioner herein if the case goes to trial. The only material witness who turned fully hostile to the prosecution will not in any circumstance help the prosecution or support the prosecution. No doubt, continuance of prosecution as against the petitioner herein will be a sheer waste of time, and it will not serve any purpose in the given circumstance.
In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner C.C No.1779/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab