The acquittal of co-accused may lead to the quashing of proceedings against another accused if the substratum of the prosecution's case is lost.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 7785 OF 2024 CRIME NO.431/2000 OF Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN LP NO.72 OF 2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

SUNILKUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER, AYITHI ABHIRAMI HOUSE, KOTTAKKAKAM MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695542 BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the original 3^rd accused in Crime No.431/2000 registered by the Nedumangad Police Station alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 55 (b) (h)(i) of the Abkari Act r/w Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction)Rules 1974. The case against the petitioner was split up and the trial as against the accused 1 and 2 was conducted by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram as S.C.No.1106/2005. Subsequently, the petitioner got himself enlarged on bail and the case has been renumbered as CP No.132/2005.

2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that, on 09.09.2000, when the police party inspected the toddy shop room bearing No.12/2000 -2001,which was taken on contract by the 3^rd accused/petitioner. The accused 1 and 2, the salesmen in the shop, were found to have manufactured toddy with excess percentage of ethyl alcohol by adding arrack and displayed the toddy mixed with arrack for the purpose of sale. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that , although he was enlarged on bail at the crime stage, subsequently, he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court. Consequently, the case against him was split up and the Trial Court proceeded with the Trial as against the accused 1 and 2. By Annexure B judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused 1 and 2, as the prosecution had miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had committed the above offences. By passing of Annexure B judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstand the ordeal of trial, it is not going to lead a conviction. Hence, the entire proceedings as against the petitioner may be quashed.

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

5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the trial. The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1 and 2. By Annexure B judgment, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the above offences. Consequently, the accused 1 and 2 have been acquitted.

6. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexure A charge sheet and the findings in Annexure B judgment.

7. In Annexure B judgment, the Trial Court found that there was no material to establish that the accused 1 and 2 were the salesmen of the toddy shop as on the date of inspection and the drawing of the samples. Likewise, the oral testimony of PW5 did not substantiate that he had duly prepared the samples, affixed his seal and also affixed a label containing the signature of the salesmen of the shop and other independent witne