IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1805 of 2009() ------------------------------------- AGAINST FINAL ORDER PASSED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DTD 26.5.2009 D.NO.1090/2009) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. MR. VASU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT NARANATHU HOUSE, MUKALATHU PARAMBIL, KANGARAPADY, VADACODE P.O., KOCHI-682 021. 2. SUMATHI VASU, W/O. VASU, RESIDING AT NARANATHU HOUSE, MUKALATHU PARAMBIL, KANGARAPADY, VADACODE P.O., KOCHI-682 021. BY ADVS. MR.K.N.CHANDRABABU MR.ELDHO K.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI. 2. MERCY JOHN, AKKARAPPATTY, KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.1805 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor, who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. This revision is in challenge of Annexure-A3 order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2. According to respondent No.2, a few trees standing in the property of the petitioners, being in dangerous condition are likely to endanger the life and property of respondent Nos.2 and others. The Revenue Divisional Officer on the basis of a report of the Village Officer concerned, issued Annexure-A3 order directing petitioner No.2 to cut and remove such trees within 15 days failing which proceedings will be taken against her under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned counsel contends that the order under challenge has all the trappings of a final order under Section 138 of the Code. 3. I am unable to accept the contention. The order under Crl.R.P.No.1805/09 2 challenge is not one passed under any of the provisions of the Code. Therefore, a criminal revision itself would not lie. That apart, what is stated in the impugned order is only that if the trees are not cut and removed within 15 days, proceedings will be initiated against petitioner No.2 under Section 133 of the Code. There is no reason to interfere with the said order. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1805/09 3