IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3250 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.864/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER:DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJITHA, D/O.A.I. ABDUL MAJEED, CHERANALLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1,3,4 AND COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUSTHAFA S/O.AMMUKUNJI, MATHILAKATH VEETIL, ARAVUSALA, KALPAMANGALAM. 2. BEEVATHU, W/O.AMMUKUNJI, DO. 3. YOUSEPH, S/O.AMMUKUNJI, DO.DO. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I.OF POLICE MATHILAKAM, CR.NO.519/2002, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3250 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 28th day of October,2008 ORDER Petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.864/2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kodungallur. Respondents 1 to 4 are the accused out of which second respondent is no more. First respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Petitioner lodged Ext.P7 complaint numbered as CMP 8459/2002 before Judicial First Class Magistrate. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation based on which Ext.P3 F.I.R was registered. Police after investigation laid the charge for the offences under sections 498A, 406, and 420 read with section 34 of IPC. Accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined and seven exhibits were marked. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found CRRP3250/2008 2 the accused not guilty. They were acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of acquittal is challenged in this revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel vehemently argued that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence and appreciation of evidence was perverse. It was argued that the fact that first respondent husband admitted in Ext.P5 power of attorney that gold ornaments of the revision petitioner, his wife, were sold and the funds were utilised by the husband was not properly taken into consideration. Learned counsel also argued that eventhough petitioner has no case that the 20 cents of property which was assigned by the father of the petitioner to first respondent was the subject matter of the power of attorney executed and learned Magistrate wrongly took it that way and it CRRP3250/2008 3 establishes that appreciation of evidence was perverse. It was further argued that learned Magistrate on the evidence found the accused guilty and the order of acquittal is not sustainable. Learned counsel also made available copy of Ext.P7 complaint as well as Ext.P5 power of attorney and the depositions of the witnesses examined. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the judgments and the depositions made available, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. So long as appreciation of evidence was not perverse it is not for this court to reappreciate the evidence and substitute the findings of the learned Magistrate especially when no material evidence was overlooked by the learned Magistrate. On going through the judgment and the evidence, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence is not a possible or reasonable view that could be CRRP3250/2008 4 taken on the evidence. There was flagrant violation of procedures and resultant miscarriage of justice. In such circumstance, revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006