IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1760 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.1043/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------------------------------- PUSHPANGATHAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUCHY VILLAGE, KURUCHY KARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, MR.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1760 of 2009 D --------------------------------------- Dated this1st day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is filed at the instance of accused No.1 in C.C.No.1043 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Kottarakara. Petitioner along with others is chargesheeted for offences punishable under Secs.457, 511 of 380, 120(b), 109 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code. Case is that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy entered between petitioner and other accused, they at the instigation of petitioner trespassed into a temple at Vendar and attempted to commit theft. Petitioner moved a petition in the court below for his discharge under Se.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) stating that the charge against him is groundless. Learned magistrate was not inclined to accept the request and dismissed the petition. Learned counsel condensed that there is no material on records to show the complexity of petitioner in the alleged incident. Crl.R.P.No.1760 of 2009 2 2. Learned public prosecutor after going through the entire CD file in connection with the case submitted that the only material available so far as petitioner is concerned is the confession statement given by accused No.3. I have perused the file and it is seen that apart from that confession statement no other material is produced by the investigating agency to prove the alleged complexity of petitioner in the crime. 3. So far as the alleged confession statement given by accused No.3 is concerned that statement would only bind accused No.3 to the extent it led to the discovery if any made pursuant to that. So far as petitioner is concerned that confession made to the police officer cannot be used against him. Apart from that confession statement there is no other material on record to show involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident or conspiracy. Hence it cannot be said that there is sufficient ground to presume that petitioner has committed the offence. As such petitioner is entitled to a discharge. Crl.R.P.No.1760 of 2009 3 Resultantly this revision succeeds. Petitioner will stand discharged of the offences charged against him under Sec.239 of the Code. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/