IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2296 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.31/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------------------------- JABBAR, S/O KUTTI AHAMMED, NEAR POLALIDWARA, GURUPURAM, DAKSHINA KANNADA. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. P.V. THAMBAN, S/O M.KUNHAMBU, ANEESH NIVAS, PEROL, NILESHWARAM KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2296 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, Jabbar, who is the 2nd accused in crime No. 177 of 2000 of Manjeswaram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C at the instance of the de facto complainant. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2000, A1 Ibrahim. K and A2 Jabbar went to the jewelery shop of the de facto complainant and purchased 566.975 gms of gold ornaments and towards the bill, they gave Rs.700/- in cash and gave a D.D drawn on Vijaya Bank for Rs.2,80,000/-. When the D.D was presented for encashment, it was found that it was a forged D.D and not a genuine one, but one converted into a D.D using a blank D.D form of Vijaya Bank. Part of the gold ornaments were recovered at the instance of the 1st accused Ibrahim. Since the revision petitioner/2nd accused was absconding, he could not be CRL.R.P. NO. 2296/2008 : 2: taken into custody by the Investigating Agency. Subsequently, he surrendered before the court without the knowledge of the Investigating Officer and got himself enlarged on bail. After the investigation of the case, the police filed a charge sheet and the case was taken cognizance of as C.C. No. 31 of 2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. During the course of the trial, that court was inclined to hold that part of the gold stolen from the jewelery shop of the de facto complainant could not be recovered due to the abscondance and non-availability of the revision petitioner/2nd accused. It was taking this fact also into account that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation of the case. It is too early to conclude that any valuable right of the petitioner has been breached by the said order. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order which is accordingly upheld. Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 2296/2008 : 3: