IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 893 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CMP.1412/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- KUNJU BEEVI, W/O.BASHEER, ARATHI NIVAS, ATTUPURAM, VANDANAM, (RTD., NURSING ASSISTANT W & C HOSPITAL ALAPPUZHA.) BY ADV. MR.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAKASAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, VISHNU MADAM, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RADHAMMA, LAY SECRETARY, GENERAL HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA. (BEFORE LAY SECRETARY, W&C HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 893 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the dismissal of a private complaint for offences punishable under Section 219 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). The case is that as per a decree obtained by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.238/05, petitioner owed money to respondent No.1. He lodged execution proceedings by filing E.P.No.254/06. In that proceedings respondent No.1 produced a salary certificate of the petitioner. That certificate was issued by respondent No.2. According to petitioner, the salary certificate was issued without taking order from the superior authorities of respondent No.2 and with malicious intention. Learned magistrate found that no case is made out and dismissed the complaint. Counsel contends that the court certificate for the issue of salary certificate was actually issued only after respondent No.2 issued the salary certificate in favour of respondent No.1 and that indicated the malicious intention of the respondents. Crl.R.P.No.893/09 2 2. Assuming so, that did not necessarily mean that there was any conspiracy between respondent No.1 and 2 or that the certificate was issued corruptly or maliciously. Petitioner has no case that the salary certificate issued by respondent No.2 was incorrect on facts. If the certificate is issued without any order from the superior authority and thereby respondent No.2 violated any statutory rule, she can be proceeded against departmentally for that. For any and every violation of a departmental rule if any, the officer concerned cannot be prosecuted in the criminal court. There is no material produced to show either that respondent No.2 issued the salary certificate corruptly or maliciously or that respondents conspired together for that. Dismissal of the complaint does not involve any illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference in revision. The Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.893/09 3