IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 867 of 2006() ----------------------------- CRMP.6127/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT; --------------------------------- P. DIVAKARAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. P.G. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PUTHIYATH HOUSE, SWAPNA BHAVAN, LAKKATTOOR POST,KOOROOPPADA VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. M/S. TEEKOY RUBBERS (INDIA) LTD., PALA, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. THOMAS JOSEPH, TEEKOY RUBBERS INDIA LTD., MAIN ROAD, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O. GEORGE THOMAS, KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, MEVIDA VILLAGE, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. MRS. ANNAMMA JOSEPH, W/O. THOMAS JOSEPH, KOTTUKAPALLY HOUSE, CHRISTIAN WOMAN, RESIDING AT MEVIDA VILLAGE, PALA P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PALA POLICE STATION. 4. ANOOP JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS JOSEPH,AGED 30, KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE,MEVIDA VILLAGE, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DT.,KERALA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PALA P.S. MR.THOMAS CHANDY,S/O.GEORGE THOMAS,R/AT KOTTUKA- Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 867 of 2006() -:2:- PALLY (H),CONVENT ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KERALA WITHIN THE LIMIT OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION. 5. MR. THOMAS CHANDY, S/O. GEORGE THOMAS, RESIDING AT KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA STATE WITHIN THE LIMIT OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION 6. JOHN JOSEPH, S/O. GEORGE THOMAS, KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE WITHIN THE LIMIT OF PALA POLICE STATION. 7. MRS. MARIAMMA MATHEW THARAKAN, W/O. MATHEW THARAKAN, AIYANATTUPARAYIL, THYKKATTUSSERY, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, KERALA STATE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THYKATTUSSERY POLICE STATION. 8. MRS. ANNIE DOMINIC, W/O. DOMINIC, KARIPPAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHRISTIAN WOMAN,RESIDING AT ROSALAYAM,THOMMAN DOMINIC ROAD,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION. 9. MRS. THERESA JAMES, W/O. JAMES, KYNADI HOUSE, CHRISTIAN WOMAN, RESIDING AT KYNADI HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR POST, CHEVAYOOR BUNGLOW, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION. 10. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN AND ADV. SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 867 of 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 17th March, 2010 ORDER In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 (1) Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who was the complainant in C.M.P. No. 6127 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Erattupetta, challenges the order dated 18-1-2006 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. In the private complaint filed by the petitioner he alleged offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 209, 406, 420, 464, 465, 468 and 477 read with Sec. 109 I.P.C. against 9 accused persons among whom the first accused is a Private Limited Company. 2. The complainant as well as two witnesses were examined on oath as CWs 1 to 3 and 12 documents were produced along with the complaint in support of the allegations. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the averments in the complaint and after considering the sworn statements of CWs 1 to 3 and the documents came to the conclusion that the Crl.R.P. NO. 867 of 2006 -:2:- complainant had not made out a prima facie case for issuing process against the 9 accused persons and that none of the offences alleged are even prima facie made out against the accused. The complainant was assailing the proceedings before the Land Tribunal which had issued certificates of purchase more than 30 years ago and the allegations made were prima facie against the regularity of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal which had issued the patta. This Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Magistrate who has dismissed the complaint after a careful evaluation of the sworn statements of CWs 1 to 3 and the documents produced by the complainant. I see no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate. This Revision is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani. Crl.R.P. NO. 867 of 2006 -:3:-