IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 783 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.17/2009 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. P.V. CHACKO, FCA, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, PALACKAL HOUSE, MEMURY, KURUPANTHARA KOTTAYAM 2. KURIACHAN CHACKO, S/O. P.V. CHACKO, PALACKAL HOUSE, MEMURY, KURUPANTHARA,KOTTAYAM 3. ANNAMMA CHACKO, W/O.P.V. CHACKO, PALACKAL HOUSE, MEMURY, KURUPANTHARA,KOTTAYAM 4. LEENA JOY, W/O. JOY JOHN, AVVATHIL VEEDU KURUMBANADU P.O., CHANGANASSERI, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.S. GANAPATHY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. P.G. SUBRAMANIAN, KUZHUVILA HOUSE, NEAR FIRE STATION, KUNDRA, KOLLAM 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CRL.R.P. NO. 783 OF 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 ORDER The Revision Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The said case arose out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 415 and 420 I.P.C. and the Money Circulation Act , 1978. 2. On 9-2-2010, the court below, as per the impugned ORDER, after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused decided to frame charge against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. ONLY thereby the learned Magistrate has impliedly discharge the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 415 I.P.C. and the offence under the Money Circulation Act. It is the said order which is assailed in this Revision. 3. The learned Sr.Advocate Sri. M.K. Damodaran placing reliance on the decision reported in Radha Ballav v. Emperor - AIR 1939 Calcutta 327 submitted that even going by the averments in the complaint it cannot be said that there was a dishonest intention to cheat the subscribers and, CRL.R.P. NO. 783 OF 2010 -:2:- therefore, the court below has erred in deciding to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. 4. It is too early to accept the above contention of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has found a prima face case for trial under Sec. 420 I.P.C. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Vijayan v. State of Kerala - 2010 (1) KLD 291 (SC) it cannot be said that the considerations while framing charge have not been borne in mind by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate. I, therefore, did not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order proposing to frame charge for an offence punishable under Sec. 420 I.P.C. 5. If a question of identity does not arise during the trial of the case, the petitioners can file appropriate petitions seeking personal exemption. In case, such a petition is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider he same favourably on the petitioner incorporating the appropriate averments in support of their petition. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) CRL.R.P. NO. 783 OF 2010 -:3:- ani.