IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 713 of 2002(C) ----------------------------- CC.28/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- SUBAIR HAJI S/O.KUNHALI,AGED 72 YEARS, (KALLAYI PUTHIYA PURAYIL) RESIDING AT "REENAS", THEVAKKARA,KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. MADATHILE PURAYIL KUNHALI @ MUKRI KUNHALI,AGED 60 YEARS,K.P.VII/532,KURUMATHUR AMSOM,PANAKKALU DESOM. 2. MADATHILE PURAYIL JAMEELA, AGED 42 YEARS,DO.DO. 3. PARAKKAL ABOOBACKER S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 44 YEARS,DO.DO. 4. MADATHILE PURAYIL SHAJITH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.KUNHALI,DO.DO. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.713 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the defacto complainant in a charge laid by Thaliparamba Police in Crime No.122/96. The prosecution had alleged that the accused, (respondents 1 to 4 herein) had committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC. 2. When the case came up for consideration before the trial court on April 9, 2002, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused following the dictum laid down by the apex court in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar [1999 (1) KLT 173 (SC)]. The learned Magistrate had noticed that one witness had already been examined by the prosecution. But no other witnesses were available on the day when the case was called. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above decision had been overruled by the apex court in Ramachandran Rao v. State of Karnataka [2002 (2) KLT Crl.R.P.No.713 OF 2002 :: 2 :: 189 (SC)]. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. Court below is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes