P. R. RAMAN, J. (for himself and for KRISHNAN, J.):- The above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein on the ground that the co-accused in the respective cases were acquitted on trial. The case of the petitioners who were absconders were separated and are now proceeded with in their respective cases. The co-accused against whom case was proceeded with earlier were finally acquitted on appreciation of the evidence in each of the cases above. It was contended that as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of any of them, no useful purpose will be served by conducting trial against them and it will be an abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice further proceedings against the petitioners is to be quashed. In support thereof reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2004(2) KLT 1039. Cri.M.C. Nos.1053, 1067 & 1078/2005 came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this Court who after referring to the decisions in Joy Vs. State of Kerala (2002(3) KLT 425); Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala (1992(1) KLT 609); Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala (1971 KLT SN 3); Felix Vs. State & others (1980 KLT 612) and also Arun Kumar's case cited supra, was of the view that there is apparent conflict in the Division Bench and Single Bench rulings of this Court and the matter required to be referred to a Full Bench. In the reference order, Ramkumar, J. also expressed his feeling that granting relief to an absconder accused may give a wrong message to a law abiding co-accused who stood trial that it was foolish on his part to attend the process of trial and its result will be that likeminded accused persons also will be tempted to adopt elusive tactics for the eventual resort to such short-cut method. Subsequently, Crl.M.C. Nos.3102, 3300, 3460 and other connected matters which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court also were referred to the Full Bench.

2. The dictum laid down in Arun Kumar's case (2004(2) KLT 1039) is as follows:

"It is up to the Judge who hears the petition under S.482, Cr. P.C., to examine the facts situation of each case, with reference to the overt acts attributed and such other relevant factors and to come to a conclusion whether the discretion vested in this Court under S.482, Cr. P.C. has to be exercised or not, it is also possible to consider whether the accused, who had not faced trial, can Sub-In seek the remedy available under S.239, Cr.P.C. for an order of discharge. In cases taken cognizance otherwise than on the basis of police report, the Court can also examine the possibility of the accused approaching the trial Court itself under S.245, Cr. P.C. as well."

3. In Chellappan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala (1992(1) KLT 609) another Division Bench of this Court, however, held that acquittal of a co-accused in a prior trial does not mean that the absconding accused who is subsequently tried is also entitled to an acquittal. In the order of reference detailed reference is made to some of the decisions of the apex Court and a few rendered by this Court and observed that it is desirable to lay down sufficient guidelines by a Full Bench so as to resolve the conflict in the Division Bench decision and Single Bench ruling of this Court. The above cases were thus placed for consideration by a Full Bench.

4. Heard the learned counsel M/s. Sanal Kumar, P. K. Ashokan, Sunny Mathew, S. U. Nazar, M. Santhosh Kumar, M. R. Arun Kumar, V. Rajgopal, M. Ramesh Chander, C.M. Kammappu, Babu S. Nair, K. P. Mujeeb, S. Harikrishnan and S. Gopakumaran Nair, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Director General of Prosecution appearing on behalf of the State.

5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that Ai-un Kumar's case (2004(2) KLT 1039) has correctly decided

Click Here to Read the rest of this document