IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1694 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.100/2005 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 4: ------------------------------------------ SANJAY V.HARIDAS , HARI KRIPA VALLIYIL MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT:- COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1694 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner who is the 4th accused in C.C. No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam arising out of crime No. 395 of 2004 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, challenges the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate refusing to discharge the petitioner as also the 3rd accused in the case. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is too early to accept the contention of the petitioner that it was only two months after the initial statement given under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C that the witnesses for the first time implicated the petitioner who is an advocate. The acceptability and the probative value of those statements are matters which are to be considered only during trial when the substantive evidence will be adduced by the witnesses. There are 11 such CRL.R.P. NO. 1694/2008 : 2: cases pending against the petitioner. Hence the trial Judge cannot be found fault with in refusing to discharge the petitioner after having been satisfied that there is a prima facie case against him. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. It shall be open to the petitioner to move the trial court for personal exemption provided he files the necessary undertaking including one pertaining to his identity before the trial court. In case an application in that behalf is filed by the petitioner, the trial Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this Crl.R.P is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1694/2008 : 3: