IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1128 of 2009(A) ------------------------------ CC.149/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- SUSAMMA KUNJUMON, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. KUNJUMON, KUTTIRETHU VEEDU, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PONNAMMA SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. SAMUEL, NARANATHU THEKKETHIL VEEDU, ARUKALICKAL MURI, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULA VILLAGE. 3. BINU SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. SAMUEL, NARANATHU THEKKETHIL VEEDU, ARUKALICKAL MURI, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULA VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 1128 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.149/05. It was a case moved as a private complaint which was referred to the police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and prosecution was initiated thereafter. The allegations are that the accused trespassed into the property of CW1 and the 2nd accused destroyed the rubber, chillu etc. and there was wrongful confinement by the first accused and also the allegation of infliction of injuries with a rubber stick. The independent witnesses to the prosecution are CWs.3 to 6. The Court gave a large number of opportunities to the prosecution to produce CWs.3 to 6. There were issuance of non-bailable warrants and ultimately the Court decided to close the evidence of the prosecution and arrived at a decision that the materials are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Crl.R.P. 1128 OF 2009 -:2:- Unlike other cases, this is a case moved as a private complaint and there was always a responsibility for the complainant as well to procure the presence of the witnesses. Keeping silent and quiet at that point of time and thereafter coming to this Court with a prayer to set aside the order of acquittal is not proper. One has to be vigilant. What prompted the complainant to loose interest in the prosecution is his own fault and therefore I do not want to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-