IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1032 of 2009() ------------------------------ C.M.P.No.3052/2008 IN CC.65/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY REVN. PETITIONER(S): 6TH ACCUSED -------------------------------- N.K.IBRAHIMKUTTY, 30/161, "WINNY", MEDICAL COLLEGE .P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THAMARASSERY. 2. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 1032 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner who is the 6th accused in C.C. No.65/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery arising from O.R.No.8/2001 of Forest Range, Thamarassery for offences punishable under Sections 27(e)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and Section 2(ii) and 2(iv) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 challenges the order dated 16-2-2009 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery dismissing the prayer of the revision petitioner for discharge. The learned Magistrate discharged petitioners 1 to 3 therein saying that those petitioners had ceased to be the directors of the company on the date of occurrence. With regard to the petitioner herein who was the 4th applicant before the learned Magistrate, it was not in dispute that he was a director of the company during the relevant time and he continues to be so. The learned Magistrate found prima facie material for framing charge against the petitioner. It is too early for him to contend that without arraying the company of which he is a partner he cannot be proceeded against. Now the only course open to the revision petitioner is to face trial. Crl.R.P. 1032/09 -2- 2. Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for personal exemption during the trial of the case, if the question of his identity does not arise for consideration during the trial. Petitioner is also entitled to raise a question of limitation also. Accordingly, if petitioner files an application for personal exemption during the trial, the learned Magistrate shall favourably consider the same and pass orders, in case the question of his identity does not arise for consideration. 3. Subject to this liberty granted to the revision petitioner, this revision petition is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.