IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1731 OF 2007() ------------------------------ CMP.86/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- P.J.PAULACHAN, H.S.A, ST.JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL, ANGAMALY, PRESENTLY RTD AND STAYING AT PUTHUPPARA HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALY (VIA), ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PAULACHAN (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. P.V. NARAYANANKUTTY, DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ALUVA 3. K.N. JOY, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA (NOW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SARVA SIKSHA ABHIAN OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.) 4. P.N. KARUNAKARA PILLAI, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA. 5. JAYARAJ, CLERK, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA (NOW HEAD CLERK, DIET, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., VIA PERUMBAVOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (IMPLEADEAD AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.4797/07 DT. 25/5/07) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R1 SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) FOR ADDL.R2 TO 5 SRI.V.J.JOHN FOR ADDL.R2 TO 5 SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH FOR ADDL.R2 TO 5 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 1731 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva in C.M.P.86 of 2006. Revision petitioner, who was then working as a teacher at St.Joseph High School, Angamaly, lodged the complaint against first respondent the then District Educational Officer, second respondent, the then Personal Assistant to the first respondent, third respondent the then Superintendent of D.E.Office, Aluva, and fourth respondent the then clerk of D.E.Office, Aluva, alleging that they committed offences under section 167, 463, 466, 471 and 120 B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the revision petitioner is that in furtherance of their common intention and to get bribe from the revision petitioner who refused to pay bribe in spite of demand, respondents committed forgery in the service book of the revision petitioner by changing the date of increment as 23.7.1990 falsely and thereby committed the offences. Learned CRRP1731/07 2 Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the revision petitioner as well as three witnesses, examined on his side 10 exhibits, and dismissed the petition under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure holding that there is no sufficient ground or material to proceed against any of the accused for the offences as alleged. The order is challenged in the revision contending that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the materials and on the statements and exhibits it should have been found that there are materials to proceed further against respondents. 2. Revision petitioner argued in person. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 were also heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the sworn statements of witnesses and the materials produced, I find no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the revision petitioner is that respondents demanded bribe from him and on his refusal forged a false entry in his service book changing the date of increment to 23.7.1990. The case is that his service book was at the office of the D.E.O. and making use CRRP1731/07 3 of the opportunity, a false entry was made and thereby the offences were committed. Though petitioner argued that the alleged forged entry was made by fourth respondent and that too in furtherance of the common intention of all the respondents, there is absolutely no material to prima facie accept the submission. When the sworn statements as well as the materials produced by the petitioner did not show any valid ground to proceed further, learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C. I find no reason to interfere with the order as it is perfectly legal. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-