IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 625 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.9/1998 of J.F.F.C., PATTAMBI dated 24/01/2001 .................... REVISION PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ITTOOP, S/O.KURIAN, ARIMPOOR HOUSE, CHALISSERY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MATHEW ALIAS SABU, S/O.ITTIACHAN, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, CHALISSERY. 3. VARGHESE, S/O.UKKURUKUTTY, KANNANIKKAL HOUSE, CHALISSERY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN – R1 ADV. SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN FOR R2&R3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No.625 of 2001 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This revision is against an order of acquittal passed in a case registered on a police report. PW1, the defacto complainant, is the revision petitioner. 2. After appreciating the materials on record, the learned Magistrate concluded that the versions given by PW1 and PW2 materially contradict even the allegations in the police report. It was noticed that there are a number of cases between two factions of the members of the church and PW1 had admitted that the accused persons are members of the rival committee of the church. PW1 is also an accused in another case registered as S.T.880/1997. His son is also an accused in that case. With the materials on record, I do not find any legal infirmity or such irregularity, illegality or impropriety calling for exercising Crl.R.P. No.625/2001 - 2 - revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against order of acquittal, at the instance of the defacto complainant. There is no ground to reverse the impugned order of acquittal, in revision. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/19/8 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.