IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1448 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRRP.81/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.125/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... PETITIONER/REVN.PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALI. K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUNAHAMMED HAJI, KONGATH HOUSE, ALANALLUR-I VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UMMER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMMED, KONGATH HOUSE, ALANALLUR-I VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1448 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 21st May 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.125/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad. First respondent was the accused. Prosecution case was that on 12/1/1999 at about 9.45 a.m first respondent on account of enmity towards petitioner as he demanded to repay Rs.77,000/- which was given to him for the purpose of obtaining visa, wrongfully restrained petitioner and beat him on his left eye and kicked him on the face causing injury which resulted in his loss of vision of left eye and thereby committed offence under Sections 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. Sub Inspector of Police after investigation lodged charge which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. First respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined six witnesses including the petitioner as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. On the side of first respondent witness was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 CRMC 1448/09 2 was marked. Learned Magistrate after elaborate consideration of all the evidence found first respondent not guilty and acquitted him. Petitioner thereafter filed Crl.R.P.81/2005 before Sessions court, Palakkad. Learned Sessions Judge on hearing the counsel appearing for petitioner as well as going through the evidence on record, dismissed the revision finding that order of acquittal is proper and correct and requires no interference. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 order of acquittal passed by learned Magistrate and Annexure A2 order of Sessions Judge in the criminal revision as no second revision is maintainable. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that it is not disputed that petitioner lost his vision in one of his eyes in the incident and courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and on the evidence it should have found that first respondent committed the offences. It was argued that courts below should have relied on the evidence of PW2 who identified first CRMC 1448/09 3 respondent as the person who assaulted the petitioner and in such circumstances the order of acquittal is illegal and is to be quashed. 4. On going through the judgments of courts below and hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court either as Annexure A1 order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was after for proper appreciation of evidence. So also Annexure A2 order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the revision is after considering all the relevant aspects. I find that learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge properly considered the evidence. No evidence was omitted to be appreciated. Appreciation of evidence was not perverse warranting interference in revision. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. CRMC 1448/09 4