IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2014 of 2009 ------------------------------ CC.1126/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------- JOHN V. JOHN, PROPRIETOR, JVJ FINANCIERS, PALLARIMANGALAM, THEKKEKARA. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS/ACCUSED: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKARA THROUTH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.' 2. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. GOVINDAN KANNIMEL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, PALLARIMANGALAM MURI, THEKKEKKARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2014 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Secs.415 and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code. Chargesheet was filed against respondent No.2 and another (accused No. 2 who died and hence the charge against him abated) alleging that between 14-08-02 and 16-06-03 respondent No.2 and accused No.2 by pledging spurious gold ornaments with the petitioner received money and cheated him. Prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to P6 and MO-1 to 3 series. Learned magistrate found that evidence revealed that respondent No.2 had pledged certain ornaments with the petitioner and received money but it is not shown that MO1 series to MO3 series are those ornaments. Holding so, respondent No.2 was acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Code of Criminal Crl.R.P.no.2014 2 Procedure. Petitioner is aggrieved and hence this revision. It is contented by learned counsel that there is sufficient evidence to show that MO1 series to MO3 are the ornaments pledged by respondent No.2. It is also submitted by learned counsel that respondent No.2 has executed agreement admitting pledge of gold ornaments but that agreement given to the investigating officer was not produced. 3. Petitioner is a financier engaged in lending money on the security of pledge of gold ornaments. Learned magistrate was found from the evidence that though, respondent No.2 had pledged ornaments with the petitioner and received money during the relevant period it is not shown that MO1 series to MO3 are the ornaments involved. According to the prosecution respondent No.2 cheated the petitioner on 13 occasions. Relevant documents are not produced to show that MO1 series to MO3 are the ornaments involved. Learned magistrate also observed that there is no evidence to show that the gold ornaments were in safe custody. Crl.R.P.no.2014 3 It is prima facie difficult to think that respondent No.2 could successfully cheat petitioner, who is a financier on 13 occasions. Normally when gold is taken as pledged, it will be tested to ascertain whether it is gold. It is unlikely on 13 occasions that was not done. What is available is the evidence of petitioner (PW1) and his wife (PW3). PW2 having refused to support them. It is after consideration of the evidence and arriving at a finding that identity of the ornaments is not established that acquittal of respondent No.2 was ordered. Revisional court cannot interfere with an order of acquittal even if acquittal is on a wrong finding so far as it is not alleged, irregular or perverse as petitioner is wrong. Even if it is assumed that a different view is also possible interference in revision is not warranted. Only when acquittal is patently wrong that revisional court can and should interfere. It is made clear that acquittal of the respondent No.2 by the court below is on the finding that petitioner was not able to prove the identity of the ornaments pledged. Crl.R.P.no.2014 4 I am not satisfied that there is any glaring injustice flowing from violation of fundamental principle of law or procedure calling for interference . Revision is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/