IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2003 of 2004() ------------------------------ MC.63/1992 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Adoor dated 09-06-2004 .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS 3 & 4: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE ALEXANDER, MUTHOOT, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY. 2. GEORGE THOMAS, MUTHOOT, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER & OTHERS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE MATHEW, KOCHIYIL, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ADOOR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.S.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MM P.S.GOPINATHAN.J --------------------------------- CRRP No.2003 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9 th day of November , 2011 J U D G M E N T This revision petition is preferred against the order in MC.63/92 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Adoor. The revision petitioners along with two others in their petition before the lower authority alleged obstructing of a public way by the first respondent. In pursuance to the petition, Sub Divisional Magistrate, initiated proceedings under chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially a conditional order was passed. It was assailed before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta who set aside the same and remanded back for fresh CRRP NO.2003/2004 --2-- disposal on merits. Accordingly, the lower authority conducted a de novo enquiry, during the course of which two witnesses were examined on the side of the revision petitioners as PWs1 and 2. On the side of the first respondent, two witnesses were examined as CPW1 and CPW2. The first respondent had also produced the decree in OS No.604/1988 which was confirmed in appeal. 2. The lower authority on appraisal of the evidence on record supported by the decree in O.S No 604/88 as confirmed in AS 72/92, arrived at finding that no public pathway was in existence, and that the property over which the revision petitioner and others claim right is a part of the property owned by the first respondent. CRRP No.2003 OF 2004 --3-- Consequently, the proceedings were dropped after closing the case. Assailing the said order, this revision petition was preferred. 3.There was no representation for the petitioner despite the fact that the case was posted on various occassions. In the above circumstances I have gone through the order impugned and heard the Government Pleader. 4. By the order impugned, it is seen that the authority below had meticulously analysed the evidence on record and arrived at a conclusion against the revision petitioner. The decree and judgment in OS No. 604/ 88 as confirmed in A.S.No. 72/92 also supports the case of the first respondent. The revision petitioner could not CRRP No.2003 OF 2004 --4-- establish the existence of a pathway. The disputed property is part and parcel of the property of the first respondent. So there wouldn't arise the question of obstructing public pathway, so as to initiate action under chapter X of Code of Criminal Procedure. The order impugned is in tune with the evidence on record . In the above circumstance, I find no error, illegality or impropreity in the order under challenge. The revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN. JUDGE mm