IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1118 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.19/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, MATHALEMEDA, CHITTUR, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE K.KOCHUPAPPU SRI.P.VELAYUDHAN SRI.V.G.SANKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHINNEPPA RAWTHAR, S/O.NOOR MUHAMAD RAWTHAR, PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR, PALGHAT DIST. 2. ILLIYAS, S/O.ANEEFA RAWTHAR,PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 3.SIDDIK S/O.CHINNAPPE RAWTHUR, PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 4.RAJAN, S/O.THATHAN, PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 5.NARAYANAN, S/O.KANDAN, PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 6. SAIDMUHAMAD, S/O.MUTHUR RAWTHAR, PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 7.KAJAHUSSAIN, S/O.HAJIYAR RAWTHUR, PATTAR PALLAM, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 8. RAMEBARAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, ENARAKULATHMEDU, MUTHELAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. 9. STATE OF KERALA, (S.I. OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.287/97) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.V.M.BABY FOR R2TO8 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1118 of 2001 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 7th August, 2009. O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the defacto complainant against the order of acquittal passed by Magistrate Court. Respondents 1 to 8 are the accused in the case. They were charge sheeted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After trial, Magistrate Court found that prosecution has not proved the case and hence the accused were acquitted. 2. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of cutting and removing the trees standing in a school compound and in pursuance of the common object, armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the school compound, cut and removed the trees and thereby caused a loss of Rs.20,000/-. 3. PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of prosecution. PW1 to PW6 are the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of this, PW1 to PW3 supported the prosecution case and PW4 to PW6 turned Crl.R.P. No.1118/01 2 hostile to the prosecution. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the trial court entered a clear finding that the evidence of PW1 to PW7 proved the incident by which trees were cut and removed and that the role of accused in the incident is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was also held that there is sufficient evidence to hold that accused cut and removed the trees from the property as alleged. In the light of the above findings, accused ought to have been convicted for the offences for which they are charge sheeted, it is submitted. 4. I have gone through the evidence in detail and also the impugned order. On doing so, I find that the proof of certain acts committed by the accused will not constitute the offence alleged. Lower court found from evidence of various witnesses who supported prosecution that trees were cut and removed from the property over which revision petitioner cannot claim any exclusive possession. PW1 has no locus standi to institute a complaint against the accused who is the Manager of a school. 5. It has come out from evidence that on the Crl.R.P. No.1118/01 3 southern side of the school compound there is a road which is separated by fence. The property from which trees were cut and removed lies on the southern side of the road. Therefore, where incident occurred is not part of the school compound, as per evidence. PW1 had filed a complaint as Manager of the school but he has no locus standi to file the complaint in respect of a mischief or offence committed in a property which is not lying within the school compound. He has not established any right as a school Manager to prosecute the accused for the commission of alleged acts. 6. The court below found that PW1 cannot claim exclusive possession over the property etc. PW1 and accused no.8 are brothers and it is brought out in evidence that there is property dispute in respect of the school as well as the property from which trees were cut and removed. The Investigating Officer (PW11) deposed that he had not investigated into who were the owner of the disputed property. He has not verified any documents. He has not even seized the trees allegedly cut and removed. Crl.R.P. No.1118/01 4 7. It is not revealed from investigation where exactly the trees were standing. PW7 is an attestor to the mahazar who supported the prosecution. He gave evidence that when he came to the place of occurrence there was no evidence to show that the trees were cut. In such circumstances, I find no merit in this revision. There is no reason to set aside the order of acquittal. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.