IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1641 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CC.795/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- N.P.THOMAS, PROPRIETOR NTP CORPORATION ETTUMANOOR KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. VIDYANANDA PAI, ASWATHI HOUSE, COCHIN CORPORATION 35/2562A, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SRI.P.M.RAFIQ FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1641 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Respondent No.1 appeared through counsel. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner challenges the acquittal of respondent No.1 for offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Case is that while respondent No.1 was working as an Accountant in the firm of the de facto complainant, respondent No.1 committed theft of Rs.28,000/- from his brief case kept in the office sometime between 12.4.2003 and 25.6.2003. On the information given by the petitioner police registered a case and after investigation charge-sheeted respondent No.1 for the said offence. Petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 to 6 are employees working in the office of the petitioner. They claimed that they learnt about the theft and involvement of respondent No.1 from the petitioner. Petitioner is not a witness to the alleged incident. Learned magistrate observed that the only circumstance pointed out by the prosecution to prove the crime of theft by respondent No.1 is that his relatives had offered to pay the amount allegedly taken by him. Learned magistrate further CRL. R.P. No.1641 of 2009 -: 2 :- observed that the said aspect alone is not sufficient to hold that respondent No.1 committed the theft as alleged. 3. Learned magistrate acquitted respondent No.1 under Sec.248(1) of the Code in the facts and circumstances and in the nature of the evidence let in by the prosecution. There is no evidence to show that respondent No.1 removed the brief case from the possession of the petitioner. Materials produced not even create a strong suspicion against respondent No.1. Learned magistrate is therefore correct in acquitting respondent No.1. No interference is required with the order impugned. Revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv