IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1709 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CC.457/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): AGGRIEVED PARTY ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADHU @ MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.BAVA, PALLATH HOUSE, KAIPPAMANGALAM, KOORIKKUZHI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED - COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUTTAN @ SUBRAMONIAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUVABA, ANCHALASSERY, P.VEMBALLUR, S.N.PURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM (CRIME NO.315/2004) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU R2 SRI.S.M.PREM FOR R1 SMT.K.P.SANTHI FOR R1 SRI.P.K.NIJOY FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1709 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Judgment of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur in C.C. No.457 of 2009 acquitting respondent No.1 of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420, 423 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge in this revision at the instance of of petitioner who along with others had preferred a private complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on which police filed a final report. Charge against respondent No.1 in short is that at a time when two of his brothers were abroad he forged a Power of Attorney as if it is executed by his brothers. On the strength of that Power of Attorney he created an equitable mortgage of the properties belonging to the brothers by entrusting the title deed with the Bank officials concerned and availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. Brothers learnt about the forgery and mortgage when they later obtained an encumbrance certificate from the Sub Registry Office concerned. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the judgment passed by the learned magistrate is not a speaking judgment and without properly appreciating the evidence. Counsel for respondent No.1 contended CRL. R.P. No.1709 of 2009 -: 2 :- that on the evidence on record the acquittal is justified. 2. I have gone through the judgment under challenge and I find that there is no proper discussion of the evidence. Learned magistrate has only extracted some portions of depositions of some of the witnesses and then observed that no offence is made out. Learned magistrate has to consider the evidence on record and pass a reasoned judgment. In the circumstances the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Revision is allowed. Judgment under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law after considering the evidence on record. Respondent No.1 shall appear in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kodungallur on 30.6.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv