IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3226 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2009 IN CMP. 932/2009 IN CC.1438/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM K.I.,S/O.HAMSAKOYA, TGT,GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, KAVARATTI. 2. SAIFUDEEN,S/O.T.P.SAYEDKOYA, TGT,GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,KAVARATTI. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY. (C.C.NO.1438/2003) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3226 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1438 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. The Station House Officer, Town North Police Station filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioners alleging offence under Section 341, 323, 342 and read with Section 34 I.P.C. Seeking an order of discharge, the revision petitioners filed petition C.M.P.No.932 of 2009 before the learned Magistrate. By the order impugned dated 30/6/2009, the petition was dismissed. Now this revision. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perusing the final report, I find that the averments in the final report filed by the Station House officer contains necessary allegations to send the revision petitioners for trial for the above mentioned offences. Ofcourse, the revision petitioners had advanced a contention that the case was falsely foisted for the reasons stated in Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4. But those documents alone cannot be looked into at this stage to discharge the revision petitioners. It is a matter to be considered in evidence. The documents relied may sometimes enable them Crl.R.P.No.3226 of 2009 2 to establish that this case was falsely foisted with ulterior motives to wreak vengeance. Much would depend upon the evidence adduced. It cannot be decided in a petition for discharge or in this revision. Those documents, at this stage cannot be accepted in toto to conclude that the allegations in the report of the investigating officer, which prima facie discloses materials to send the revision petitioners for trial are baseless. Since any observation regarding the nature of the material now available on record may prejudice the revision petitioners, I am not venturing to comment. I fail to find that the order impugned is anyway erroneous, improper or illegal so as to be rectified in revision. 3. During the course of argument, the learned counsel had raised a contention that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with plea that the revision petitioners are Government employees and to prosecute them sanction is required. But it is admitted that such a ground was not urged before the trial court. In the above circumstance that contention deserves no consideration in this revision. I find no error, illegality or Crl.R.P.No.3226 of 2009 3 impropriety in the order impugned to interfere with in exercise of revisional powers. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the revision petitioners to urge their contention before the trial court regarding the plea of want of sanction. The learned counsel also sought an order for personal exemption from appearance during the trial stage. The revision petitioners are at liberty to apply before the trial court, which shall duly dispose such application in the event it is filed . P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.