IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 770 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.340/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA MC.17/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. T.R.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN, `KRISHNAKRIPA', CHERIYANADU P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SOBHANA BALACHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.BALACHANDRAN, `KRISHNAKRIPA', CHERIYANADU P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE --------------------------------- SREEJA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.SARASAMMAL, PEROORPADEETTATHIL, THULAMPARAMBU VADAKKUM MURI, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SM. REKHA.C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. ORDER The revision petition is preferred by the respondents in a proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act challenging the judgment dated 6.12.2010 in Crl.Appeal No.340/2009 of the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara against the judgment dated 22.4.2009 in M.C.No.17/2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad. 2. The revision petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in MC.No.17/2008, which is a proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, at the instance of the respondent herein who is the wife of the son of the revision petitioners. The first respondent who is the aggrieved person preferred the petition before the Magistrate court alleging domestic violence against the aggrieved person and also misappropriation of her gold ornaments and cash by the respondents. The marriage of the aggrieved person with son of the respondents are not disputed. The husband of the aggrieved person died on 26.12.2006. According to the aggrieved person Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 2 at the time of marriage her parents gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents. It is also the case of the aggrieved person that at the time of marriage gold ornaments worth 176 gms was entrusted with the respondents but the same are also misappropriated by them. During the trial PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Ext.P1 agreement dated 19.6.2005 were marked from the side of the petitioner. Ext.X1 to X3 were also marked as witness Exhibits. The trial court after consideration the allegation and the defence taken by the respondent and after considering materials and evidence on record allowed the petition in part. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.2,28,800/- being the value of 176 gms gold ornaments to the petitioner within one month from the date of that order. Respondents are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- being the amount received by the respondent from the parents of the aggrieved person within one month from the date of that order. The learned Magistrate while allowing the above two prayer, the prayer of the aggrieved person for realisation of the value of house hold articles and presentation articles and for realisation of compensations are dis-allowed. 3. Against the above judgment and direction of the learned Magistrate though an appeal was filed by the revision petitioners Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 3 herein, the learned judge of the appellate court, by judgment dated 6.12.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.340/2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the learned Magistrate. It is the above judgment of the courts below challenge in this revision petition. 4. I have heard Sri.S.Shanavas Khan the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. I have perused the order impugned. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner herein had misappropriated gold ornaments and also the amount. Taking me through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court, the learned counsel has pointed out that even according to the respondent/the aggrieved person the amounts and the gold ornaments were entrusted with not exclusively with the revision petitioners but to the deceased husband of the aggrieved person as well. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the aggrieved person miserably failed to establish that the revision petitioner has misappropriated the amount as well as the gold ornaments. 6. I am unable to sustain the above contention, against the findings of the courts below as well as the appellate court Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 4 especially at this stage since while exercising the revisional jurisdiction , this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and materials and to interfere with the orders of the trial court as well as the appellate court. In this case there is the substantial evidence of PW1 and other witnesses and also contemporary documentary evidence to show that the entrustment of the amount as well as the gold ornaments. Admittedly, the marriage was on 3.7.2005 and the husband of the aggrieved person, who is none other than the son of the revision petitioners, died on 26.12.2006 within a period of more or less 18 months from the date of the marriage. It is also an admitted fact that till the death of the son of the revision petitioners there were no dispute in the family. If that be so, in the absence of any positive evidence to show that the money and the gold ornaments which entrusted at the time of the marriage were exclusively within the possession of the deceased, it cannot be said that the allegation of misappropriation against the revision petitioners would not lie. On the other hand, the trial court as well as the appellate court after appreciation of the evidence, found that the allegation is correct and proved and accordingly issued the order with the direction as indicated earlier. Considering the very object of the enactment and when Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 5 especially there no illegality or perversity with impugned order this Court will not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 7. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that sufficient time may be granted to the revision petitioner to comply with the orders issued by the trial court. Accordingly, the revision petitioners are granted two months time from today to comply with the direction issued by the trial court which confirmed by the appellate court. It is made clear that the trial court is free to take coercive steps if the revision petitioners fails to comply with the order of the trial court within two months from today. The Crl. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm