IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 658 OF 2007() ----------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER DATED 20.1.2007, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ PILACKAL KAMMU, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 40, RESIDING AT PILACKAL HOUSE, IRINGALLUR, PARAPPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/STATE ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNNATH ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, KUNNATH HOUSE, IRINGALLUR AMSOM DESOM, PARAPPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.658 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Challenge in this revision is to Annexure D order dated 20.1.2007 of respondent No.2. It is seen from the impugned order that a complaint was received by respondent No.2 alleging obstruction to the use of an alleged public pathway at the instance of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 obtained report of the Village Officer concerned, conducted a local inspection and issued the impugned order observing that he is satisfied that petitioner has caused obstruction to the use of the public pathway. Petitioner was directed to restore the pathway. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the order is per se illegal as it is not in compliance with Sections 133 to 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ”the Code”). It is also contended that in connection with the same alleged pathway a suit is pending in the civil court. Counsel for respondent No.1 asserted that public pathway has been obstructed by the petitioner. 2. I am not going into the merit of the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and respondent No.1. It is seen that respondent No.2 has not complied with the provisions of Secs.133 to 138 of the Code. When information is received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate CRL. R.P. No.658 of 2007 -: 2 :- as to the obstruction to any public pathway, he has to issue a conditional order followed by the procedures prescribed under Secs.137 and 138 of the Code. Since that has not been done the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel on both sides submitted that a civil suit is pending in connection with the disputed way. It is open to the parties concerned to bring that matter to the notice of the Sub Divisional Magistrate at appropriate stage. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur to proceed in accordance with law in case further action is seen warranted. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv