IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 467 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC NO.262/1998 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY REVISION PETITIONER: --------------------- MUHAMMED ALIAS MAYAMOOD, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, EZHUNGALTHARAMMEL, EDAKKAD, KANNOOR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ---------------- 1. HAMEED, S./O.HASSAN, MUZHAPPILANGAD, EDAKKAD POST. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.467 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. ORDER Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for the first respondent. 2. The revision petitioner preferred a private complaint in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery alleging that the first respondent, on a promise of arranging job for the revision petitioner as driver in Soudi Arabia received a total sum of Rs.40,000/- on two occasions but did not arrange the job as promised, instead, the revision petitioner was given job as a menial servant in Soudi Arabia. He asked the first respondent to return Rs.40,000/- which also was refused. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Police for investigation. The Police after investigation filed final report stating that the first respondent committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the court below, the revision petitioner gave evidence as PW1 and examined PWs 2 to 7. Of them, PWs 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the alleged transaction. They stated about the revision petitioner (PW1) paying Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent for providing job as a driver. The first respondent gave evidence as DW1 and proved Exts.D1 and D2. According to him, it was one Mustaffa who had promised to arrange job to PW1 and when there was some dispute between the Crl.R.P.No.467/2001 2 revision petitioner and Mustaffa, he only intervened. It was to prove that, Exts.D1 and D2 were produced in evidence. Court below considered the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 and came to the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence to show that it was the first respondent who promised to arrange job to the revision petitioner. Consequently, the first respondent was acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submitted that there was sufficient evidence to convict the first respondent for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On going through the evidence I am not inclined to think that there was anything illegal or irregular in the finding entered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate requiring interference by the revisional court. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.467/2001 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.467 of 2001 ORDER 23rd September, 2008.