IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3935 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.120/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- RAKESH TRADE CREDITS LTD. PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.THEJ RAJ JAIN. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED -------------------------- 1. STATE OF EKERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL NAZE3R,S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA PARAPPALLA HOUSE,KANBA,KINAVALLUR PALAKKAD. 3. MUHAMMED HANEEFA,S/O. MUTHU RAWTHER PARAPPALLA HOUSE,KANBA,KINAVALLUR PALAKKAD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R2,3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 3935 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.120/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. Respondents 2 and 3 are the accused. Case against them was that on 24/4/2004 at about 10 a.m Rs.1,50,000/- was received by second respondent from the Managing Partner of revision petitioner Limited company, and third respondent was the surety and executed a hire purchase agreement in respect of bus KL-10-B-979. Second respondent being the principle debtor agreed to repay interest on instalments as stated in the agreement It was contended that with an intention to cheat the revision petitioner, bus was disposed for dismantling and respondents 2 ad 3 thereby committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Based on the final report submitted by the police, charge for the offence under Section 406 and 420 read with Section 34 was framed. Prosecution CRRP 3935/08 2 examined Pws.1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. No defence evidence was adduced. On the evidence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad acquitted respondents 2 and 3 under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of acquittal is challenged in this revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that from the evidence, especially Exts.P2 hire purchase agreement, fact that there was a hire purchase agreement and second respondent obtained Rs.1,50,000/- and third respondent was a surety was established. It was further argued that evidence also establish that with the intention of cheating revision petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention disposed the bus and dismantled the same and in such circumstances, order of acquittal is not sustainable and the evidence was not properly appreciated. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, I find no reason to interfere with the order of CRRP 3935/08 3 acquittal. Though existence of hire purchase agreement was established there is no acceptable conclusive evidence to prove that the bus was dismantled as contended by the prosecution. Learned Magistrate appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. The view taken by the Magistrate on appreciation of evidence is the possible view that could be taken on the evidence. Finding that ingredients of offence either under Section 406 or 420 of Indian Penal are not established is perfectly correct. In any case, there is no misappreciation of evidence warranting reappreciation of evidence. I find no merit in the revision. Revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.