IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 915 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- CRRP.50/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE CC.87/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE ............................................ PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.V.GANGADHARAN NAIR,AGED 66 YEARS, SON OF LATE N.ACHUTHAN NAIR, NARATH HOUSE,P.O.VENGERI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ATMA RAM,AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF LATE HARIDAS MAROLI, DIRECTOR,INSTITUTE OF CALLIGRAPHY, MURALIS,37/1454 A, PARAMBATHU ROAD, KARUVASSERY,KOZHIKODE. 2. P.K.KARUNAKARAN, GENERAL MANAGER,INSTITUTE OF CALLIGRAPHY, MURALIS,37/1454 A, PARAMBATHU ROAD, KARUVASSERY,KOZHIKODE. 3. SHYAMALA,WIFE OF HARIDAS MAROLI, DIRECTOR,INSTITUTE OF CALLIGRAPHY, MURALIS,37/1454 A, PARAMBATHU ROAD, KARUVASSERY,KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN FOR R1 & R3 SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN FOR R1 & R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJADALI FOR R4. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.915 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 29th July 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.87/2005 which was taken cognizance by Judicial first Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode. After summons was issued to respondents 1 to 3 under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused entered appearance and evidence of accused was recorded. Learned Magistrate thereafter heard the complainant and the defence and finding that it is not a case for discharge, framed charge for the offence under Sections 323, 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as provided under Section 246(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Dissatisfied with the order not framing charge for the offence under Sections 420 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, petitioner filed Crl.R.P.50/2008 before Sessions court, Kozhikode. As per Annexure-3 order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as no second revision CRMC 915/2009 2 is maintainable. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 were heard. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Magistrate did not consider the pleading in Annexure-1 complaint as well as the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 recorded under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code while discharging respondents 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 420 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. Argument is that if the complaint is read as a whole along with evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it would establish that there was a dishonest intention on the part of respondents 1 to 3 at the inception and the grievance is not for not receiving royalty amount and therefore learned Magistrate was not justified in discharging respondents 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is also argued that on the evidence learned Magistrate should have framed charge for the offence under Section 420 as well as 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for CRMC 915/2009 3 respondents 1 to 3 pointed out that petitioner has challenged Annexure-2 order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge and exercising revisional jurisdiction learned Sessions Judge has considered the legality, regularity and propriety of the order and thereafter petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same by re-course to a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents 1 to 3, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-3 order. Scope of revision is limited. Learned Sessions Judge is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute the findings of the learned Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge considered the relevant aspects and whether Magistrate has complied with the procedure as provided under the Code and whether the order warrants interference in exercise of revisional powers. It was found that the procedure was complied with. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed or any perverse appreciation of the evidence or resultant miscarriage of justice, CRMC 915/2009 4 exercising revisional powers no interference was warranted. I find no reason to take a different view. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.