IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 398 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.268/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.897/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS:APPELLANT:ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMBILODE AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR. 2. M.K.MOHANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMBILODE, KANNUR. 3. M.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMBILODE AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR. 4. M.K.SAJEEVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMBILODE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 398 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners are accused 2 to 5 in CC No.897/93 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. They, along with their father, the 1st accused, faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 448, 342, 354 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. During the course of trial, the 1st accused died and the charge against him abated. The petitioners were found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. They preferred Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The conviction was confirmed but the sentence was modified to payment of fine. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments of the courts below, the revision petitioners have come up in revision. 2. Since the counsel for the revision petitioners remained absent, I did not have the occasion to hear them. Hearing parties/counsel in revision is only optional under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I heard the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Crl.R.P.No.398/2001 -:2:- 3. The case arose on a complaint(Ext.P1) preferred by PW1 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code. The police investigated and submitted the final report implicating the revision petitioners and the 1st accused. It is contended in the revision petition that there was absolutely no material on record to conclude that revision petitioners have committed any offences as alleged. 4. The defacto complainant gave evidence as PW1. PW2 is her husband who is none other than the younger brother of the first accused. PW3, however did not support the prosecution. PW4 stated that he had seen the revision petitioners coming to the scene of occurrence on the relevant day and time in a jeep and going to the paramba of the defacto complainant carrying weapons. After some time, he heard commotioned from that paramba. PW6 though stated that he had seen certain persons indulging in destruction of crops in the paramba of the defacto complainant, did not identify any of the assailants. PW7, the Head Constable reached the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P2, mahazar which refers to the Crl.R.P.No.398/2001 -:3:- destruction of crops in the paramba in question. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the revision petitioners had in furtherance of their common object committed mischief in the property belonging to the defacto complainant. Though the defacto complainant had made certain other allegations also against the revision petitioners and the 1st accused, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept those allegations. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also has considered the oral evidence in the light of Ext.P2 and come to the conclusion that the revision petitioners in furtherance of their common object, committed offence under Section 427 IPC, which I find little interfere with. The sentence awarded also is moderate and required no interference. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb