IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3623 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRRP.34/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), MANJERI CMP.12/2006 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- UNNAMAN, S/O.UNNAMAN (LATE), KALLADIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PERINTHATTIRI P.O., POTHUKUNDA, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUNJALI HAJI, THODUMANNIL, PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, PERINTHATTIRI P.O., POTHUKUNDU, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.3623 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the petitioner in C.M.P.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna. Upon a petition filed by the revision petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna issued a show cause notice under Section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first respondent herein, who was the respondent though appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he did not care to defend. Consequently, the petition was allowed by order dated 12/3/2007. The first respondent took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri as Criminal Revision Petition No.34 of 2008. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), to whom the revision was made over, by order dated 2/4/2009, allowed the revision petition and while setting aside the order impugned, the case was remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the above order, this revision petition was filed. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not worried about a Crl.R.P.No.3623 of 2009 2 disposal on merit by the trial court. According to the learned counsel, in paragraph 8 of the impugned order there is mention by the learned Sessions Judge that Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable and Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable. That observation is not correct. 3. Having heard either side, I find that the apprehension can be avoided by allowing the party to agitate their contention before the trial court without being trammeled by the observation in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the order impugned. In the above circumstance, this revision petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose the matter afresh without being trammeled by the observation in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the order of the Sessions Judge. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.