IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 332 of 2001() ----------------------------- ORDER IN CMP NO.6289/2000 IN CC NO.514/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR. REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------- VANNARAPURAYIL NARAYANI, D/O.MANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KUNNARU, RAMANTHALI, THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, PAYYANNUR EXCISE RANGE, PAYYANNUR. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.332 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner was facing trial in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur in C.C.No.514 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. While so, the revision petitioner filed C.M.P.No.6289 of 2000 to stop further proceedings obviously in the light of the decision in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1999 (1) KLT 173-SC). That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 2. The decision in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar referred supra has been overruled by a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2) KLT 189-SC). As such, there is nothing illegal or irregular in the learned Magistrate refusing to stop further proceedings. Revision petitioner has to face the trial. Revision Petition is dismissed. Crl.M.P.No. 1445 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks 2 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.332 of 2001 ORDER 23rd September, 2008.