IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2443 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CC. NO.2/2000 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -, KOZHIKODE ......... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- P.BALAN, S/O.KUTTAN, PRABHA NIVAS, MAYANADU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------- 1. N.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.APPUTTY, NOORNHINGARA HOUSE, P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 008. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.THOMAS ANTONY R2 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUZAKKARA MUHAMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2443 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an order passed under Section 249 of the Cr.P.C acquitting the accused. There cannot be an order of acquittal under Section 249 of Cr.P.C and it shall be only an order of discharge. Therefore, it is desirable it is construed as a discharge and when it is so, only a revision will lie against that order. Therefore, I am inclined to convert the criminal appeal into criminal revision for the purpose of rendering justice to the parties. 2. Now on to the facts. It was a private complaint filed under Section 420 of the IPC. When a private complaint is filed and it is a compoundable offence, then the procedural formalities enumerated under Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be followed. When it is so, the witnesses have to be examined. Here, PW1 was examined and it was posted for further evidence of the complainant's witnesses. They were not produced before the court. The court below terminated the proceedings and acquitted the CRL.R.P.NO.2443/09 2 accused under Section 249 of Cr.P.C in stead of discharging the same. 3. I feel, the court below should have certainly given an opportunity to the complainant to proceed with the matter and therefore, it should not have passed an order for discharging the accused. Therefore, the order passed under Section 249 which is read as discharge is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the case back to file and proceed in accordance with law from the stage where he has stopped. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 08.09.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl