IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 554 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.119/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD S.T.C.3631/95 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT-ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- A.AMBADI, S/o. KORAGAN, AGED 44 YEARS, THALIPPADAPPU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS-COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO.554/2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.No.3092/2000 IN CRL.R.P.554/2000 DISMISSED 29/02/2008 SD/- A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.554 of 2000 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. The trial court found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The above order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the trial court had committed a serious illegality and irregularity in not examining the independent witness cited by the prosecution who was in fact produced before the court after his arrest. It was also noticed by the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner/accused had specifically raised a contention that non-examination of the independent witness was a serious flaw which had affected the prosecution case. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in relying on the testimonies Crl.R.P.No.554/2000 2 of the two official witnesses namely, the Excise Inspector and the Assistant Excise Inspector who were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. 3. On perusal of the trial court records, the learned Sessions Judge noticed that the omission to examine the independent witness was unjustifiable especially since the court records revealed that the said witness (CW3) had been arrested and produced before the court. It was therefore that the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the order of conviction and sentence and remitted the case back to the trial court with a direction for fresh disposal after examining CW3. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court was not justified in remitting the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. There is no merit in the above contention at all, particularly since the petitioner had raised a specific contention before the Appellate Court that non examination of the independent witness was fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge had only accepted the above plea and directed the court below to examine the independent witness. I do not find any error or illegality in the Crl.R.P.No.554/2000 3 order passed by the Appellate Court. The revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on May 5, 2008. The court below shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It will be open to him to urge all his contentions before the trial court. It will also be open to him to examine his witnesses, if so advised. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs