IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1798 of 2005() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC.186 / 1996 IN CRL.MP.1528/2004 of PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CP.25/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------- STELLA RAJANKUTTY, ACHANTAYVILA VEEDU, NEAR VEDAN MUKKU, PADAPPAKARA, PERAYAM CHERI, MULAVANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.V.SUMITA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1798 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated 7th June 2010 O R D E R Revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 14/10/2004 dismissing Crl.M.P.1528/2004 in S.C.186/1996 passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge had framed charge for the offence under Sections 451 and 376 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty. When the case was posted for evidence, prosecutor filed Crl.M.P.865/2000 under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for permission to investigate the case further. As per order dated 13/10/2000 further investigation was CRRP 1798/05 2 ordered. Final report was not submitted. Still, case was posted for evidence. At that stage prosecutor filed Cr.M.P.3150/2001 to stop the trial till a final report under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure is submitted. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.1528/2004 under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. That petition was dismissed and Cr.M.P.3150/2001 was allowed and trial was stopped. Dismissal of Crl.M.P.1528/2004 is challenged in this revision petition contending that when the Public Prosecutor admitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence, he should be discharged. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRRP 1798/05 3 3. On the very face of the admitted facts, petition under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure will not lie. When the accused appears on getting summons from the Sessions court, he is definitely entitled to seek an order of discharge as provided under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But once that stage is over and learned Sessions Judge found that there is a case against the petitioner and framed charge and recorded his plea, Section 227 cannot be invoked thereafter. Once charge is framed, accused is either to be acquitted or convicted. There cannot be a discharge. On that sole ground Crl.M.P.1528/2004 is not maintainable and the revision is only to be dismissed. As the learned Sessions Judge granted permission to conduct further investigation, investigating CRRP 1798/05 4 officer is directed to complete further investigation as early as possible, at any rate, within two months and submit a final report before the Assistant Sessions court. Revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.