IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 133 of 2000 ----------------------------- CMP.1914/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- NASEEMA BEEVI, D/O. JAMEELA BEEVI, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KANCHIYODE, MANCHA,NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7 & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SOMAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NADAR, PULACHAYIL MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KANYODE, MANCHA, NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE. 2. SIDDIQUE, S/O. MYTHEENKUNJU, KANCHIYODE VEEDU, DO. DO. 3. VAHEED, S/O. ABUBACKER, KANCHIYODE THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, DO. DO. 4. SHAN, S/O.IBRAHIMKUNJU, PARAMBIL PUTHEN VEEDU, DO. DO. 5. SULPHIKKER, S/O.KAMAL, VAZHODE PUTHEN VEEDU, DO. DO. 6. IBRAHIM, S/O. ISMAIL, PULACHA CHIRAYIL, DO. DO. 7. SHAJAHAN, S/O.IBRAHIM, DO. DO. 8. SYMON, S/O.SELVARAJ, PULACHA CHIRAYIL, DO. DO. 9. RAJAN, KANCHIYODE THOTTARIKATHU VEEDU, DO. DO. CRL.R.P. No. 133 OF 2000 10. NELSON, DO. DO. 11. ABU BACKER, PULACHA PANAYIL, DO. DO. 12. SOMAN, IDATHUNDATHU THADATHARIKATHU, DO. 13. SUKUMARAN, NEAR THE DIVYA PARA VEEDU, DO. 14. KUMAR, KANCHOYODE VEEDU, DO. DO. 15. BIJUKUMAR, DO. DO. 16. GEORGE, S/O. THANKAPPAN NADAR, CHAMPAPPURA, PERUMALA, NEDUMANGAD. 17. KUTTAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN NADAR, DO. DO. 18. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEDBY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R17 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU R18 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.133 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of April 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint. She had filed the complaint against respondents 1 to 17 herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447 and 427 IPC. 2. The case of the complainant was that at about 1 a.m. on April 23, 1999, the accused had trespassed into her property having an extent of 10.250 cents situated in Survey No.2072/1 at Nedumangad Village and cut a pathway with a width of 4 feet at the northern side of her property. It was further alleged that the accused had destroyed coconut trees, jack fruit tree, mahagani tree, etc. The total loss sustained was assessed by the complainant as Rs.25,000/-. 3. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and two of her witnesses as CW1 to 3 in the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While evaluating the oral testimonies of these witnesses the learned Crl.R.P.No.133 OF 2000 :: 2 :: Magistrate noticed glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. The learned Magistrate found that the case of the complainant was not believable and no offence had been made out against the accused. The alleged incident had taken place in the year 1999. More than 9 years have elapsed after the alleged incident. This revision petition has been pending before this court since 2000. Still the petitioner has not taken any effective steps to serve notice on respondent No.1. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having carefully perused the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, the Crl.R.P. is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes