IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1950 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.579/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- SAFARULLAKHAN, SAFARULLA BUILDING, PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.C.ANIRUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. B.R.RAJU, B.R.BHAVAN, THONIKKADAVU, KADINAMKULAM. 2. B.BABU, B.R.BHAVAN, THONIKKADAVU, KADINAMKULAM. 3. MICHILE.P.PERERA, WINSON COTTAGE, MUNDANCHIRA, KADINAM KULAM, PUTHUKURICHI. 4. SATHEESAN, S/O.NANUKUTTAN, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.65/2098, THIRUVALLAM, TVPM. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.C.M.NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1950 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. O R D E R Aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the trial court u/s.249 of Cr.P.C., discharging the accused in a private complaint, the complainant preferred this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the complainant was not aware of the posting of the case and hence he could not appear in the court below on the date of the impugned order. In the light of the facts stated in the impugned order, the above submission of the learned counsel not appears to be correct. From the impugned order it can be seen that, several opportunities were given to the complainant for adducing evidence and the complainant did not turn up. The above observation and findings of the learned Magistrate is not controverted. From the cause title of the impugned order, it appears that the case pertained to the year 2005. Therefore the order of the learned Magistrate is absolutely legal, proper and regular. In the light of the above facts and circumstances Crl. R.P.No.1950 of 2010 2 involved in the case and the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/