IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3222 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2009 IN CMP.6598/2008 IN CC.128/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NUMBERS 1 TO 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THANKAM, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.CHOYI (LATE), AYANIKKAT VENGALAPURATH, PANTHEERANKAVU AMSOM, KAILAMADOM DESOM. 2. POTTANGADI RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, LAKSHMI VIHAR, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. NIRMALA, W/O.POTTANGADI RAMACHANDRAN, LAKSHMI VIHAR, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 4. SUBIN, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, LAKSHMI VIHAR, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 5. URAMI PRASANTH, S/O.SREENIVASAN, MADHURIKA (HOUSE), KALATHINKUNNU. 6. RATHI, W/O.SREENIVASAN, MADHURIKA (HOUSE), KALATHINKUNNU. BY ADV. MR.M.ASOKAN MR.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED NO 7 TO 14 & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BAZEENA, W/O.SUNILKUMAR, 'BHUVANA', KUDILTHODU, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, CHEVAYUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 2. AYANIKATTU VENGALAPURATH MURALI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KAMBIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O. AMSOM, KAILAMADAM, KOZHIKODE. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3222 of 2009 3. THAMPURANKANDI SUDHAKARAN, S/O.T.K.NARAYANAN, TECHNICAL OFFICER, GMFRI, COCHIN-18. 4. KANDIYIL MINIJA, W/O.PREMARAJAN, PANTHEERANKAVU AMSOM, KAILAMADAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. KANDIYIL PREMARAJAN, S/O.KANDAN, PANTHEERANKAVU AMSOM, KAILAMADAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. KORANHIKKATTIL BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 7. KORANHIKKATTIL HAREESHKUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 8. KORANHIKKATTIL SUGATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 9. CHAKAPARAMBATH VELAYUDHAN, S/O.KANDANKUTTY, AMBALAKKOTH, UMMALATHUR, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 10. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R10 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3222 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. O R D E R Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in CC.No.128/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Kozhikode. They are facing prosecution for offences under Sec.420, 468, 465 r/w. 34 and 120(B) IPC on a complaint filed by the first respondent. The evidence was recorded under Sec.244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter charge was framed. While so, the first respondent produced certain documents along with CMP.No.6598/2008. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by Annexure-II order. Thereupon the first respondent preferred Crl.MC.No.1726/2009 before this Court. By Annexure-III order, this Court directed to reconsider CMP.No.6598/2008. On reconsideration, by the order impugned, copy of which is marked as Annexure-IV Crl.R.P.No.3222 of 2009. -: 2 :- the petition was allowed. Assailing the said order, the accused has now come up in revision. 2. The main grievance of the revision petitioners is that the document would be marked without proper proof and they would be denied chance of cross-examination. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate expressed some observation regarding the relevancy of the document. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perusing the impugned order and connected documents, I find that the apprehension is out of place. The mere fact that the petition was allowed does not mean that the document would be marked without proof or without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioners to cross- examine the witness with reference to the document. The observation in the order impugned regarding the relevancy is only prima facie observation and nothing relating to the core of the document or prosecution case. I find no merit in the revision petition. The revision petitioners can urge Crl.R.P.No.3222 of 2009. -: 3 :- their contention as and when the document is called for in evidence. Their right to challenge the admissibility of the document and to cross-examine the document is no way taken away by the impugned order. What all mentioned in the order impugned is the relevancy of the document and not its merit. There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence it is dismissed. 3. The learned Magistrate shall consider the admissibility and reliability of the documents without being trammelled by the observations in the impugned order. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-