The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings against an accused if the acquittal of a co-accused results in the loss of the prosecution's case substratum, making further trial a waste of judicial time.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2026

The petitioner is the original 2nd accused in CrimeNo.296/2017 registered by the Kollam East Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 381 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner and the 1st accused were absconding, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, split up the case against them and proceeded the trial as against the 3rd accused in C.C. No.167/2017. By Annexure A3 judgment, the 3rd accused has been acquitted, on the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 3rd accused has committed the above offences. Now, the petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court and got himself enlarged on bail and the case has beenrenumbered as C.C.No.566/2017.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that, in view of thefindings in Annexure A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, the proceedings against the petitionermay be quashed.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that, theaccused 1 to 3 were the employees of Prasanthi Cashew Factory at Uliyakovil, where CW1 was the checker. The 1st accused was the roaster, the 2nd accused (petitioner) was the clerk and the 3rd accused was the watcher. The accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, decided to commit theft of the cashew nut. Accordingly, the 1st accused committed theft of 102 kgs of cashew nuts kept in the oven of the said building and brought it outside through the front gate with the aid of the 3rd accused. Thereafter, the stolen properties were transported in an autorickshaw and with the aid of CW4 the cashew nuts were sold to CWs 5 and 6. Out of the sale proceeds, the 3rd accused took Rs.3,000/-, the 2nd accused took Rs.9,000/- and the remaining amount was taken by the 1st accused. Thus, theaccused have committed the above offences.

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

5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not face the trial.The Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the 3rd accused, and by Annexure A3 judgment, has acquitted him, on the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 3rd accused hascommitted the above offences.

6. 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 very 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 repeatedly reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court ina catena of precedents.

7. I have carefully gone through the allegations inAnnexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and the finding in Annexure A3 judgment, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had received Rs.9,000/- as the saleproceeds of the stolen properties.

8. A reading of Annexure A3 judgment substantiatesthat, though the alleged incident took place in 2015, the FIR was registered only in the year 2017, that too without any proper explanation for the delay. Likewise, there was inconsistency in the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2. Furthermore, PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, who allegedly purchased the cashew nuts from the 1st accused did not support the prosecution case. In view of the above matters, the Trial Court honourably acquitted the 3rdaccused.

9. In light of the findings in Annexure A3 judgment,I am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over again