IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 589 of 2005() ----------------------------- CC.1485/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- M/S. S.G.S.INDIA LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER CAPT. U.BHARAJ RAJ. BY ADV. MR. M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------- 1. SARADA W/O. NARAYANAN, CCCXXIII/2186, THEVARKKATTU MADAM, PALLURUTHY. 2. GEETHA DEVI W/O. VENUGOPALAN, CC XXIII/2194(A), DO. 3. STATE OF KERAL REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECOTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R1 MS. M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR R1 MR. JAGAN GEORGE FOR R1 MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 589 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. ORDER Messrs. S.G.S. India Ltd. on whose behalf PW4, the de facto complainant set the law in motion resulting in the Fort Kochi police registered crime No. 160 of 1999 against the two accused persons, challenges the order of acquittal dated 04.12.2004 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi in C.C. No. 1485 of 2001. The offences for which the two accused persons were charge sheeted were those punishable under Sections 408, 465 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused being the Manager and the 2nd accused being the accountant of the laboratory of the revision petitioner at Kalvathy in Kochi, conspired together to defraud the company and misappropriated a sum of Rs.23,680/- after fabricating false vouchers. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 4 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 4 and 12 documents were got marked as Exts.P1 to P12. On the side of the accused, four documents were got marked as Exts.D1 to D4. Crl.R.P. No. 589/2005 : 2 : 4. The learned Magistrate after trial as per judgment dated 04.12.2004 acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offences consequent on PWs 1 to 4 including the de facto complainant turning hostile to the prosecution. In the face of such evidence, it is futile for the revision petitioner to assail the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. The court below has passed the order of acquittal after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. When no witness to the prosecution supported the prosecution, it is idle for the revision petitioner to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 589/2005 : 3 :