IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4087 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2008 IN CMP 84/2008 IN CC.115/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------------- NISHANT BABU, AGED 28, S/O.RAMESH BABU, RADHALAYAM,KODIYERI FIELD OFFICER, ASOK LEYLAND FINANCE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): STATE, INVESTIGATION OFFICER & ACCUSED 1,3 AND 4: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 3. L.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, (WRONGLY TYPED AS L.K.BALAKRISHNAN), S/O.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 36, AREA OFFICER, ASOK LEYLAND FINANCE, KANNUR. 4. LAKSHMANAN, AGED 46, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, CHEMPELI DESOM, CHALA EAST, KOZHIKODE. 5. VENU, AGED ABOUT 47, PANAKKADA HOUSE, MUNDAYAD P.O., KANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 4087 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 4-03-2009 ORDER Petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 115 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Kannur, for an offence punishable under Section 380 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. involving a Tavera Car bearing Reg. No. KL13 M 1881 along with cash worth Rs. 85,000/-, a Yashika camera , a T.V. and a V.C.D. allegedly taken away by the three accused persons along with the car, challenges the order dated 2-12-2008 passed by the J.F.C.M. I, Kannur, dismissing the petitioner's his application for discharge filed under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned Magistrate has observed that even if the removal of the car by the financier may not amount to theft, the removal of the camera, T.V. , V.C.D. and cash kept in the car from out of the possession of the complainant would prima facie attract the offence punishable under Sec. 380 I.P.C. and refused to discharge the petitioner and the other two accused persons. It cannot be said that the said conclusion reached by the Magistrate is wrong. Hence, the only course available to the petitioner is to face Crl.R.P. No. 4087 of 2008 -:2:- trial. in case, the petitioner is desirous of getting exemption from appearing before the Magistrate, can certainly move the Magistrate under Section 205/317 Cr.P.C. for appropriate orders. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani Crl.R.P. No. 4087 of 2008 -:3:-