IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1563 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ ST.150/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- 1. REMA DEVI, W/O.NARAYANA KUMAR, PUNNURUTTA VEEDU, PATHIYOOR KIZHAKKUMURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. NARAYANA KUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, PUNNURUTTA VEEDU, PATHIYOOR KIZHAKKUMURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.INVESTMENTS TRUST OF INDIA LTD., REGD, & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, MASHKUR BUILDINGS, KRISHNAMMA ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 034. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1563 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence, which is pending as S.T.No.150/2008 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, preferred this revision petition challenging the order dated 3.3.2010 in C.M.P.No.6651/2009 in the above case. The impugned order issued upon a substitution petition, preferred by the complainant by which it is prayed to allow substitution of a person, representing the company-the complainant in that case. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that serious objection raised in the court below pointing out that there is no document to show that the petitioner is the Vice President of the complainant/company and the alleged authorisation is a forged document and the company is under liquidation. I am unable to endorse the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The learned Magistrate has held that all the contentions raised by the accused can be settled only on the Crl. R.P.No.1563 of 2010 2 basis of the evidence and on the basis of those contention, the petition can not be dismissed and accordingly the petition was allowed. 3. It is relevant to note that the court below has taken cognizance upon the complaint filed by the company and the case is now pending for consideration of the court below. Therefore, the court has to dispose the case on merit that too only after the trial, during which the accused/revision petitioner can take whatever contentions that they have got regarding the internal affairs of the company and the documents relied on by the complainant for substituting the person representing the company. They can also adduce contra evidence. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition and the revision petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to approach the court below at appropriate time, by raising appropriate contention against the maintainability of the complaint, if they are so advised. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/