IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 970 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- A9.6462/2006/K.DIS DTED 12.2.2009, AND ORDER DATED 21.4.2007, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT (EXECUTIVE) MUVATTUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- C.P. YOUNAN ALIAS JOHN, S/O. PATHROSE, CHITTEHTUPARYIL, KOLENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S) - COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.P. JACOB, S/O.PAULOSE, CHITTETHUPARYIL, KOLENCHERY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.970 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard counsel on both sides and Public Prosecutor. 2. Annexures A3 and A4, orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha is challenged in this revision. As per the impugned orders petitioner was directed to construct a drain along the side of his property to avoid inundation of water on the property of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that going by Annexures A3 and A4, orders it is issued or purported to be issued under Chapter XB of the Code Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and hence the orders are revisable under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, per contra contended that the orders do not come under any of the provisions of the said Chapter and are passed under provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, “the Order”) and hence no revision would lie. 3. There is no dispute that if the impugned orders are passed under the provisions other than Chapter XB of the Code, this Court cannot exercise the power of revision invoking Secs.397 and 401 of the Code. I have gone through the file concerning the proceeding of the Revenue Divisional Officer and find that though in Annexure A4, CRL. M.A. No.970 of 2009 -: 2 :- order there is no reference to the provision of law under which that order is issued, there is reference to the proceeding of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 21.4.2007 (Annexure A3). On going through Annexure A3 it is seen that there is reference to the subject matter as coming under provisions of the Order. It is seen from the file that notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.9.2006. In that notice there is reference to provisions of the Order and its alleged violation by the petitioner. Going by the averments in the complaint also it is seen that proceeding is not initiated under Chapter XB of the Code but under provisions of the Order. If that be so, the orders are not revisable invoking Sec.397 and 401 of the Code. Remedy of petitioner is to challenge the impugned orders under the provisions of the Order. Resultantly, without prejudice to the right if any of petitioner to challenge the impugned orders before the appropriate authority this revision is dismissed. Registry shall return the records to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned immediately. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2897 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv