IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4297 of 2006() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2006 IN CRMP 2729 & 2843/06. IN SC.835/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAN, S/O.CHAMI, KALYANAKANDATHIL, KAYARADI P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JOY, S/O.THOMAS PARAPLACKAL HOUSE, KAYARADI P.O., OLIPPARA, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE REP. BY THE A.S.I. OF POLICE, NEMMARA POLICE STATION REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 4297 of 2006 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. ORDER The petitioners, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 835 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Palakkad, filed separate applications seeking a discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The said applications were dismissed by the court below by a common order dated 17.10.2006 holding inter alia that since the court has already framed the charge, allowing the applications for discharge filed by the accused would amount to review of its own order and that the accused having not raised any objection to the framing of charge, were precluded from raising the same after the charge was framed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Admittedly, the case was investigated and charge sheeted by an A.S.I of Police who is not an empowered officer. Officer of and above the rank of Sub Inspectors of Police alone CRL.R.P. NO. 4297/2006 : 2: are empowered to file a complaint under Section 50 of the Abkari Act. This aspect of the matter has been recently considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 1047). If so, the court below did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, much less, frame a charge. The revision petitioners are accordingly discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to proceed afresh after rectifying the defects already noted. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 4297/2006 : 3: