IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3574 of 2007() ------------------------------ MC.82/2006 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------ JOSEPH, PULIYAMPILLY HOUSE, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN SRI.MATHEW CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SMT.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, LAKSHMI VILASOM, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE. 2. SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN, ROOPESH BHAVAN, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.P.V.PRAKASAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3574 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 138 Cr.P.C. making absolute an earlier conditional order passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. By the said order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had directed that one Anjili tree and two coconut trees which stand in the property in the possession and control of the petitioner and which lean over the adjacent house of the complainant be cut and removed. 2. The conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter statement. He asserted that he is not the title holder of the property. The records show and it is not disputed that the property belongs to the daughter of the petitioner herein, who as also her husband are both employed abroad. Virtually there is no plea or contention that the petitioner is not in management of the property in question, where the trees in Crl.R.P.No. 3574 of 2007 2 question stand. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, before passing the conditional order, had obtained a report from the Village Officer, in which it was confirmed that the trees stand in a dangerous condition posing imminent danger to the house of the complainant and its occupants. 3. In fact the impugned order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. further shows that both parties were heard and “the counter petitioner (petitioner herein) admits that the trees are in a dangerous condition”. Be that as it may, the only technical ground which is raised before me is that the petitioner is not the title holder and consequently he cannot be directed to cut and remove the trees. The counter statement filed does not show that any objection whatsoever was raised against the assertion that the trees were in a dangerous condition and they pose imminent danger to the complainant's house. 4. The direction in the instant case has been issued not to a stranger, but to the petitioner, who, without dispute is the father of the title holder and is looking after the interests of the title holder in the property in the absence of the title holder in India. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the very technical objection raised that the Crl.R.P.No. 3574 of 2007 3 petitioner is not the title holder cannot be held to persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction vested in this Court. Any and every error committed by a subordinate court shall not ipso facto persuade this Court to mechanically invoke its revisional powers of superintendence and correction. The conscience of the Court must be satisfied that failure of justice does result by the alleged incorrectness/impropriety in the proceedings/order. I find no incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The mere fact that the person in management of the property does not have title over the property shall not vitiate an order issued under Sections 133 and 138 Cr.P.C. At any rate, revisional interference is not warranted. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) tm Judge