IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 694 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/01/2009 IN MP 7223/2008 IN CC.890/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- E.M.PURUSHOTHAMAN,AGED 66 YRS,S/O.MANI, ANUGRAHA, VYTTILA DESOM,POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE ----------------------------------------- 1. BEJOY VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS, S/O.LATE P.K.VARGHESE, BUSINESS,PUTHENPURACKAL, CANNON SHED ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL, SHENOY'S ROAD,KALOOR,KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-17. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.694 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 though duly served remained absent. 2. Petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent No.1 alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). His case is that respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement with him for sale of land belonging to him, received a huge amount as advance, had agreed to effect mutation of the property in his name and pay the land tax before sale deed is executed but, respondent No.1 failed to do so. Later petitioner learnt that the property had already been mortgaged to the Central Bank, Coonoor branch which fact was suppressed from the petitioner at the time of the agreement. Thereon petitioner filed a private complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the Code. The stand taken by respondent No.1, as the learned counsel put it, is that there was no such agreement for sale of the property, respondent No.1 had availed a loan from the petitioner and at that time some signed blank papers were given to the petitioner which has been converted into an agreement. In the course of trial petitioner filed M.P.No.7223 of 2008 to call for the records relating to mutation and payment of land tax by respondent No.1. That application was dismissed by the learned magistrate by the impugned order stating that there is no necessity to call for the documents 2 mentioned in the petition. According to learned magistrate, the said document is not necessary to substantiate the issue in this case. 3. Learned counsel submits that to disprove the contention of respondent No.1 that signed blank papers were given to the petitioner, the documents in the possession of revenue officials are required to be called for. According to the learned counsel if there was no agreement for sale there was no necessity for respondent No.1 to handover a photocopy of the receipt for payment of land tax to the ptitioner. 4. It is open to the petitioner to request the court below to summon the revenue official concerned as witness to give evidence or to produce the documents in question. Resultantly, this revision petition is closed but making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to request the court below to summon the revenue official concerned with the relevant documents as witness in proof of the case pleaded by him. On proof of such documents, its attested photocopy can be obtained and marked in evidence and the original documents returned to the witness. Crl.M.A.No.2062 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks