IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 933 of 2002() ----------------------------- CC.296/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/INJURED(DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN CHACKO, PUTHENCHIRAYIL, ARUVAPPUALAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.AJITH R.MENON SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.LAVARAJ M.G. SRI.JOSE KURIAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. AYOOB, ASSARIPARAMBIL VEEDU, ARUVAPPULAM MURI, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE. 2. SAJEEV MOHAMMED ASSARIPARAMBIL VEEDU, DO. DO. 3. BALAKRISHNAN, CHERIVAKULAYIL, DO.DO. 4. SHAJAHAN, PALAMTHOTTATHIL VEEDU, DO.DO. 5. MAJEED, UPUPPUKOTTUMANNIL VEEDU,DO.DO. 6. ABBAS, CHERIVUKALAYIL VEEDU, DO.DO. 7. NOUSHAD, EETTIMOTTIL PUTHENVEEDU,DO.DO. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.R.P.No.933/2002 2 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.No.5215/2002 IN CRL.R.P.No.933/2002 DISMISSED. 08/04/2008 Sd/-A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.933 of 2002 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the defacto complainant in Crime No.349/1998 of Konni Police Station. He impugns the order of acquittal of the accused (except accused Nos.1, 3 and 6) on the ground that the “CW1 the injured and the other independent witness did not turn up”. 2. It is seen observed by the learned Magistrate that CWs.1 to 4 were absent even though notice was served on them. Subsequently, warrants were issued against these witnesses which were returned 'unexecuted' on the ground that the Police personnel were on law and order duty. On the second occasion the warrants were returned with the endorsement “not found”. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that neither he nor other injured witnesses had been served with summons. Annexure-A1, which is stated to be the copy of the summons allegedly served on the petitioner has been produced. Endorsement on Annexure-A1 was “copy received”. This is seen to have been signed by someone else. The report that was filed C.R.R.P.No.933/2002 2 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Konni stated that summons had been served on a representative of the witnesses. Annexure-A2 produced by the petitioner also would amply show that there was no effective attempt to serve summons or warrant on the witnesses. 4. Having perused the materials available on record and having gone through the impugned order, I have no hesitation to hold that the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused on the ground mentioned in the order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The criminal revision petition is allowed. Registry shall send back the records to the lower court forthwith. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs