IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 790 of 2001() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/05/2001 IN CMP. 1875 /2001 IN CC.1181/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.K.DHANALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE, TALIPARAMBA BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 790 of 2001 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.3669/2001 DISMISSED 10.2.2009 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.790/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.1181/99 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba, is the petitioner in this Revision Petition. She, an advocate practicing in the Courts of Taliparamba, was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 417 and 419 of the IPC at the instance of a client of hers. C.M.P.No.1875/2001 was filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C alleging that there are material contradictions in the 161 statements of the witnesses with regard to the alleged misappropriation of money. Some of the material documents to prove the transaction have not been produced on behalf of the prosecution. It was contended that the offence under Sections 417 and 419 will not lie against the accused. 2. The Court below entertained the petition, but I find from a reading of the impugned order that except Crl.R.P.790/2001 2 for laying down the parameters relating to a petition seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C and the manner in which the power is to be exercised, the Court below has not really gone into the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the accused. In fact, the facts have not been considered and the contentions have not been appreciated. 3. In the circumstances, I am constrained to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to re-consider and pass fresh orders on C.M.P.No.1875/2001, after considering the contentions urged on behalf of the accused on merits. Such order shall be passed obviously before further proceeding with the matter. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs