IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 174 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2009 IN CMP.2349/2009 IN CC.1631/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------------- P.A.MOHAMMED ALI, MANAGING PARTNER, RAY'S TRAVEL BUREAU, MUMBAI - 400 002, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 39/6830, ROHINI BUILDING, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, ALUVA (CRIME NO.281/06 ALUVA POLICE STATION) 3. MRS.CELINE PAUL, PALATTY VEEDU, AYIROOR P.O.,KURUMASSERY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = Crl.R.P. No. 174 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner challenges the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the J.F.C.M-I, Aluva refusing to discharge him of the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 10 of Emigration Act, 1983. 2. The revision petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion, before the preliminary hearing under Section 239 Cr.P.C by the Magistrate. This court as per order dated 11.03.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.946/2008 gave liberty to the revision petitioner to plead for a discharge before the Magistrate. It was thereafter that the petitioner's application for discharge stands dismissed by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on materials which were not accompanying the final report under Section 173 (2)Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate perused the materials filed by the Police along with the charge sheet and came to the prima facie conclusion that there is sufficient case for proceeding against the petitioner. It is not open to the petitioner to either rely on or produce documents which are not produced by the Police along Crl.R..P. No. 174//2010 -:2:- with the charge sheet in the light of the decision in State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi (AIR 2005 SC 359) I do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Magistrate. The petitioner will have to face trial before the Magistrate. In case there is no question of identity and in case the petitioner makes out sufficient ground for personal exemption, this order will not preclude him from filing a petition before the Magistrate for personal exemption. Dated this the 14h day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj