IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2760 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST S.C. 70/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ K.R. BIJU, AGED 33, S/O. RAJAPPAN, PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE, THRIKKALANGODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 2760 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 18-08-2008 ORDER The revision petitioner who was charge-sheeted on 25-10-2006 by the Nilambur Police and whose case was pending before the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Manjeri as S.C. 70 of 2007 approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing Crl.R.P. 393 of 2007 for quashing the proceedings before the Addl. Sessions Court. As per order dated 4-12-2007 this Court though not inclined to quash the proceedings gave the revision petitioner an opportunity to plead for a discharge at the stage of preliminary hearing under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. But as a matter of fact, the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Manjeri had on 7-8-2007 already framed the court charge against the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The fact that the trial court had already framed the charge was not known to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the report dated 27-11-2007 submitted by the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Manjeri to this Court also the fact of framing of court charge was not mentioned. Hence, it was under the impression that the trial court had not framed the charge that the petitioner was given Crl.R.P. 2760 of 2008 -:2:- an opportunity to plead for a discharge Since a charge had already been framed on 7-8-2007, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to plead for a discharge in spite of the earlier order of this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 7-8-2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Court framing charge is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to plead for a discharge during the preliminary hearing under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. This Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.