IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1027 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.312/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 TO 8 ----------------------------------- 1. HEMALATHA RAMANATHAN, SAKETHAM HOUSE, IYMKOMBU KARA, VELLIYAPILLY VILLAGE. 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, THULASI BHAVANAM HOUSE, URULIKKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, CHIRIYAM MAKKAL VEEDU, KURIVIKKODU BHAGOM, ELIKKULAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE. 4. RADHAMANY, W/O. SUNIL KUMAR, CHORIYAM MAKKAL VEEDU, KURIVIKKOODU BHAGAM, ELIKKULAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE. 5. AMMINIKUTTY AMMA, CHORIYAM MAKKAL VEEDU, KURIVIKKOODU BHAGOM, ELIKKULAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE. 6. BHASKARAN NAIR, KALYANI NILAYAM, MARIDAM KARA, KIDANGUR VILLAGE. 7. RADHAMANI.C.C, C/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, KALYANI NILAYAM (ERTHEDATH) HOUSE, MARIDAM BHAGAM, MARIDAM KARA, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P SRI.S.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 1027 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 23-03-2009 ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 to 8 in C.C. No. 312 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Kanjirappally for offences punishable under Sections 143, 120 (b), 465, 468, 471 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. challenge the order dated 28-11-2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing their petition to discharge them under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has in the impugned order given reasons in support of his conclusion that there is sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused persons and that he is not convinced that the charge against the accused persons is groundless. This means that the trial court has found a prima facie case for framing charge. The said conclusion has been reached after a consideration of the materials produced by the prosecution. The consequence is that the petitioners will have to face the trial. I refrain from making any observations on the merits of the Crl.R.P. No. 1027 of 2009 -:2:- case lest it might prejudice one party or the other. It shall be open to the petitioners to file application for personal exemtpion during the trial of the case and the Magistrate shall favourably consider their applications as and when filed. This Crl.R.P. is accordingly disposed of. Dated, this the 23rd day of March 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.