The quashing of proceedings due to the loss of substratum following acquittal of co-accused, referencing inherent powers under the Penal Code.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 13^th accused in Crime No.116/2001 registered by the Kunnathunadu Police Station and Crime No.321/CR/EKM/02 registered by the Crime Branch CID, Ernakulam, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 436, 427, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act .

2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that;

On 15.05.2001, at about 22.30 hours, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into a Garment Company and ladies hostel owned by CW2 and committed rioting with deadly weapons and caused hurt to CWs 1 to 4. They also threw explosive substance on the premises and caused loss of Rs.17,00,000/- to M/s. Kitex Garment.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Crl.M.C., that, although he had got himself enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently he did not receive any summons from the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, (Trial Court). Consequently, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 to 11, 14 to 26 as S.C.No.508/2007. By Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the above accused persons as the the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the above offences. Subsequently, the trial as against the 12^th accused was also conducted and, by Annexure A4 judgment, the said accused was also acquitted. By the passing of Annexures A3 and A4 judgments, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to yield a different result than Annexures A3 and A4 judgments. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to proceed with the trial as against the petitioner. Hence, the findings in Annexures A3 and A4 judgments may enure to the benefit of the petitioner also. Hence, all further proceedings in S.C.No.68/2013 on the file of the Trial Court as against the petitioner may be quashed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The above crime was registered as against the accused person for allegedly committing the above stated offences.

6. Indisputably, the petitioner did not participate in the trial. Consequently, the case against him was split up and the trial as against the accused 1 to 11, 14 to 26 was conducted by the Trial Court. By Annexure A3 judgment the said accused person were acquitted and subsequently, by Annexure A4 judgment, the 12^th accused was also acquitted.

7. In Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552] , a full Bench of this Court has held that, in a case where the substratum of the case is lost by the acquittal of the co-accused, the inherent power of this Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings against the other accused persons. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a plethora of precedents on the above question of law.

8. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexures A1 and A2 Final Reports and the findings in Annexures A3 and A4 judgments.

9. A reading of the findings in Annexures A3 and A4 judgments substantiate that all the ocular witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution. They unambiguously testified that they had not seen the assailants. In view of the lack of materials to substantiate the culpability of the accused in the crime, the Trial Court by Annexures A3 and A4 judgments, acquitted the above accused persons.

10. In light of the findings in Annexures A3 and A4 judgments, I am convinced t