IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3505 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DTD.6/10/2009 IN CRL.M.P.NO.3338 OF 2008 IN CRL.M.C.Nos.1095 & 1099 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO.127 OF 2008 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. RENJITH, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, T.C.29/1510, POST OFFICE LANE, CHEMPAKASSERY, PALKULANGARA, VANCHIYOOR. 2. AJIKUMAR, S/O.JAYAMONY, T.C.29/257, THENGAPPARA LANE, KAWARADI, VANCHIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT: --------------- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3505 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are the accused 1 and 3 in Crime No.127 of 2008 of Vanchiyoor Police Station for offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 324 & 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. By order dated 24/6/2008 in Criminal M.C.No.1095 of 2008 and 1099 of 2008, copy of which is produced as Annexure-I, the revision petitioner along with other accused were granted bail on certain conditions. The revision petitioners were directed to report before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. for a period of three months and thereafter on the last day of every Saturday of every month on the same timing, till the final report is filed. It is submitted that the revision petitioners were regularly appearing on Saturdays for a period of three months and thereafter on 25/10/2008 the revision petitioners reported before the Investigating Officer. According to the revision petitioners the Investigating Officer was not in Station and so they could not sign the register which was in the custody of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, Crl.R.P.No.3505 of 2009 2 immediately filed a petition along with an affidavit, both of them not dated, stating that the revision petitioners failed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 25/10/2008 and there is violation of the conditions in Annexure -I order and hence the bail shall be cancelled. 2. Notice was served upon the revision petitioners on the petition filed by the Investigating Officer. They filed objection stating that, on 25/10/2008 they, in fact, reported before the Police Station, but the Circle Inspector, who was investigating the case, was not in the office and that since the register maintained in the Station to record the appearance was taken by the Investigating Officer, the revision petitioners could not put their signatures and thereafter on 5/11/2008 they were arrested in another case and continue to be in custody. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, by the order impugned, allowed the request of the Investigating Officer. Consequently the bail granted as per Annexure-I order was cancelled. 4. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3505 of 2009 3 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned public prosecutor and perusing the order impugned, I find that, in fact the learned Sessions Judge had not arrived at a conclusion regarding the reasons submitted by the revision petitioners for the so-called failure to report before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer did not care to deny the allegations that the revision petitioners in fact reported on 25/10/2008 and on that day the Investigating Officer was not available in the Station and hence they could not put their signature. The learned Sessions Judge found against the revision petitioners for the reason that till the report was filed by the Investigating Officer the revision petitioners had not reported before the Court. 6. Admittedly there is no condition stipulated in Annexure-I order that in the event the Investigating Officer is not present in his office, the revision petitioners shall report before the court. In the above circumstance, the revision petitioners cannot be found fault with for not reporting before the court. Since the Investigating Officer had not countered the statements made by the revision petitioners that they were in Crl.R.P.No.3505 of 2009 4 fact reported before the Investigating Officer on 25/10/2008 and the Investigating Officer was not present in the Office, I find that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have believed the version submitted by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners had given sufficient explanation as against the statement of the Investigating Officer that they did not report before the Investigating Officer. In the light of the explanation of the revision petitioners it is to found that there is no violation of Annexure-I order. In this view of the matter I find that the order impugned is not sustainable. The order setting aside Annexure-I order would stand set aside. The revision petitioners shall hereinafter comply with the conditions in Annexure-I order till the final report is filed. Revision petition is disposed as above. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.