IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2543 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRMP.4272/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- SHIBY, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SOMARAJAN, SHIBY BHAVANAM, CHERUPUNJAMURI, PERINGANAD, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.L.JAYAWANTH SRI.S.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS JOSE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, VALLATTOOR PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPULICKAL MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2543 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision arose from order dated 20.1.2007 in C.M.P. No.4272 of 2008. That was a complaint preferred by petitioner under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. His case is that on 26.6.2008 at a time when he was out of station, respondent No.1 removed his Maruti Car from his compound without his permission. That day evening when he came to his house his mother informed him that respondent No.1 took away the Car on the pretext that he was sent by the petitioner. Learned magistrate recorded sworn statement of petitioner. It is stated in the order that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity petitioner did not produce any other witness in support of his allegation of theft. Learned magistrate has observed that sworn statement of petitioner does not show that respondent No.1 committed any offence as alleged. There was also no document to show possession of Car with the petitioner. CRL. R.P. No.2543 of 2009 -: 2 :- Concededly petitioner is not a witness to the alleged incident. He claimed to have got information about respondent No.1 removing the Car from his mother. But mother was not produced in the court below to record evidence. No other witness was also produced by the petitioner. In the circumstances learned magistrate is justified in holding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against respondent No.1. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Revision Petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv