IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2756 of 2010() ------------------------- CRRP.99/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- ANTONY,AGED 50,S/O.VARUNNY, KAINADATH HOUSE,VARAKKARA DESOM,AMBALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.2756 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27 th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.996/2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Irinjalakuda for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 IPC challenges Annexure AIII judgment dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda dismissing Crl.R.P.No.99/2006 for default. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused while employed as cashier in Pudukkad Major Section of the K.S.E.B had misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,20,297/- during the period 1.8.1997 to 25.3.1999. According to the petitioner the Magistrate had framed charge against the petitioner twice as evidenced by Annexure A1 and AII charges dated 9.11.2004 and 2.3.2006 respectively and that was why he challenged the same by filing a revision before the Sessions Court. 3. The learned Magistrate initially framed charge for the aforesaid offences on 9.11.2004 as evidenced by Annexure A1 charge in Malayalam. Thereafter, according to the Magistrate Crl. M.C. No. 2756 of 2010 2 since the alleged commission of the offences were beyond 12 months the charge submitted by the Police as well as framed by the Court offended Section 219 Cr.P.C and eventhough the prosecution was directed to file separate charges they did not comply with the same and that was the reason why for the period from June 1998 to February 1999 Annexure AII charge was framed on 2.3.2006. 4. But in the said period covered by Annexure AII charge also the amount allegedly misappropriated is shown as the very same amount of Rs.1,20,297/-. Since there were apparent contradictions in the two charges framed by the court, the petitioner challenged the same before the Sessions Court, Thrissur which was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the revision for default. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have disposed of the revision on merits. Instead, the revision has been dismissed for default. The revisional courts can only answer the revision one way or the other and cannot dismiss the same for default. Accordingly, Annexure A III order dated Crl. M.C. No. 2756 of 2010 3 26.4.2010 passed by the revisional court is set aside and Crl.R.P.No.99/2006 is restored to file with a direction to dispose of the same afresh on merits, after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj