The Madras High Court in the case Jaisankar v. The State and another observed, while quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the court noted that the prosecution was a malafide one.
In the present case, it was found that the accused was in possession of 96 IMFL rum bottles in a car. The investigating officer intercepted the car and the rum bottles were seized. On 10.07.2021, the crime was registered and on the very next day on 11.07.2021, the final report was filled. It was claimed by the petitioner that the prosecution was nothing but an abuse of process of law and no materials were available on record to proceed against the accused.
The bench comprising of Justice N Sathish Kumar, after going through the materials available on record observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused and there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. It was also noted by the Court that there was no necessity to destroy the IMFL liquor. Destruction was usually made where wash, sonti soru, toddy or illicit arrack was found. However, it was not the case of the prosecution that the liquor was illicit. Thus, there was no reason for not producing the bottles or the photographs taken by the investigating officer before the trial court.
Further, the court noted that the occurrence took place on 11.07.2021 but the FIR was registered on 10.07.202, prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence. The Court noted that the final report was filed on 11.07.2021 before the FIR reached the court. Only on 23.07.2021, the FIR reached the court. It established clearly that the prosecution was a malafide one. It was also noted by the court that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police and if it was found that the same could be quashed as the prosecution itself was without any material.
Thus, the Court’s would not venture into the probative value of the statements recorded or materials collected by the police while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But, at the same time, when the Court finds very prosection itself is infested with a motive and instituted due to statistical purpose without any materials, to prevent abuse of law, the court can very well interfere and quash such proceedings.
Accordingly, the court quashed the final report and allowed the present criminal petition.
