IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1350 OF 2001() ------------------------------------------- CC.68/1997 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- P.K. DAS, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, RAMA MANDIRAM, VATTAVILA, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S) - ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRABHAKARAN, S/O. MUNDAN, KUNNINPURATH KONATHU VEEDU, CHEMPAZHANTHI MURI, PAGAPPARA VEEDU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI M.K. PUSHPALATHA ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAI FOR R2 SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SMT.VENEETHA M.S SRI.M.P.SASIDHARAN NAIR SRI.JESSEL VINODHAR REDRICKS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.2.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. No.1350 of 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 O R D E R -------------- Second respondent faced trial in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrte-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No.68 of 1997 for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). As per the impugned judgment dated 22.8.2001 he was acquitted of the charge under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The acquittal is under challenge in this revision petition at the instance of the de facto complainant. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner that second respondent was acquitted for the reason that period of three years has elapsed after framing of charge. According to counsel, decision in Rj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) 7 SCC 507) has been overruled by a Larger Bench in Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2) KLT 189 (SC) and therefore judgment under challenge cannot be sustained. According to counsel for second respondent, decision in CRL. R.P. No.1350 of 2001 -: 2 :- Ramachandra Rao’s case has only prospective operation. 4. Case is that on 31.10.1995 at about 3.00 p.m. second respondent voluntarily caused hurt to the revision petitioner by beating him with stick. Going by the judgment under challenge, charge was framed against second respondent under Section 324 IPC and revision petitioner was examined as P.W.1 in part. While so, awaiting report of further investigation further examination was adjourned. On 22.8.2001, impugned judgment was passed since three years had already elapsed after framing of charge on 20.1.1998. Obviously that acquittal was ordered in view of the decision in Raj Deo Sharma’s case. That decision bas been overruled in Ramachandra Rao’s case. 5. Contention raised on behalf of second respondent is that decision in Ramachandra Rao’s case has only prospective operation. But it has also to be borne in mind that the decision in Raj Deo Sharma’s case has been held to be not good law and therefore overruled. Challenging the acquittal, complainant has come up in revision. Therefore the decision in Ramachandra Rao’s case has to be applied, consequence of which is that judgment under challenge cannot be sustained. Acquittal is liable to be set aside. CRL. R.P. No.1350 of 2001 -: 3 :- Revision petition therefore, is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and case is remanded to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.2.2009. Bail bond shall stand cancelled. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO.1350 OF 2001 =================== O R D E R 10TH DECEMBER, 2008