IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3124 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- CC.73/1997 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ N. SUKUMARAN NAIR, 21/34, PERUMTHERU, KUZHITHURA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM). RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAHADEVA PANICKER, S/O. GOVINDA PANICKER, T.C. 23/1279, MELARANNOOR, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRABHA G. S. PANICKER, D/O. THAMARAKASHI, T.C. 23/1279, MELARANNOOR, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THAMARAKSHI, D/O. BHAGAVATHY, T.C. 23/1279, MELARANNOOR WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (DIED). 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CB CID, SPECIAL SQUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZER FOR R4, ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) FOR R1& R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3124 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant. Revision is filed challenging the order of acquittal passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.73 of 1997. The prosecution case was that first respondent is the managing partner and second respondent and third accused are the partners of South Indian Finance, a private finance company and in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the public by getting deposits under the promise of providing attractive interest, they induced petitioner who was examined as PW4 as well as Pw2 to deposit Rs.1,57,520/- and though the deposit became due, they did not return the deposit amount or the interest and thereby committed the offence under Section 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence of Pws 1 to 10, Exts.P1 to P3 and D1 and D2, acquitted the accused finding that there is no evidence to prove that Pws 1 to 4 invested any amount as claimed by them and found accused 1 to 3 are not guilty of the offences. Revision is filed contending that learned CRRP 3123/2008 2 Magistrate should have accepted the evidence of Pws 2 and 4 and the order of acquittal is therefore unsustainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of learned counsel is that learned Magistrate should have accepted the oral testimony of Pws 2 and 4 that they had deposited the amount on the inducement of accused 1 to 3 and as promised, neither the interest nor the amount deposited was returned and therefore the accused should have been found guilty. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. As rightly found by learned Magistrate, it is for the prosecution to prove that Pws 2 and 4 were induced by accused 1 to 3 to make any deposit and pursuant to the inducement they invested any amount with accused 1 to 3. The evidence of PW1 establish that on production of the fixed deposit receipts, accused returned the money to the depositors after filing of the complaint. Though Pws 2 and 4 contended that they did not get back the money, they did not even produce the deposit receipts evidencing the payment. Learned counsel submitted that deposit receipts were produced before the police but they did not CRRP 3123/2008 3 produce them in court. In the absence of the documents evidencing the deposit, it can only be found that prosecution did not establish that Pws 2 and 4 have made the deposit. In such circumstances, the accused were acquitted. I do not find that material evidence was overlooked leading to manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice warranting interference. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-