IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2436 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- (CP.29/2010 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI CRIME NO.229/2009 OF NEDUMUDY POLICE STATION) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------------------------- T.S. SAMUEL, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.T.V.SKARIA, THEKKINETHU VEEDU, PAYYANAMON.P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SMT.K.M.NAZREEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.N. SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2436 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010. O R D E R The 3rd accused in C.P.No.29/10, on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Ramankary, in Crime No.229/09, of Nedumudi Police Station is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the summons issued by the said court for the appearance of the revision petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that, as there is no allegation of any overt act against the revision petitioner connected with the commission of the offence, merely because he being a registered owner of the vehicle, from where the contraband article seized, he is not liable to be prosecuted and as such according to the learned counsel, the materials available on record are not sufficient to implicate the revision petitioner in the offence. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, the revision petitioner is a retired Head Master and now he had crossed the age of 80 years and as such 2 Crl. R.P.No.2436 of 2010 the summons is liable to be set aside. 3. I am unable to sustain the above contention of the learned counsel at this time. Going by Annexure A1 FIR and A2 report, the offence alleged is a serious one and this court especially at this stage, will not be justified in entering into any finding regarding the merits of the case favouring the revision petitioner and it is left open to the revision petitioner to take, whatever defence he has at the time of the trial. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the summons issued by the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner has crossed the age of 80 years, who is proposed to file a petition for discharge. Ofcourse, the question of discharge is to be considered by the trial court. Now only the summons has issued and after the inquiry is over, it is for the learned Magistrate to commit the case and it is open to the revision petitioner to make request before the learned Magistrate for his exemption at the time of committal of the case. I am sure that the learned 3 Crl. R.P.No.2436 of 2010 Magistrate will consider such a request on merit and he will insist the presence of the accused/revision petitioner only if his presence is inevitable and indispensable. With the above observation, this criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/