IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 876 of 2000(A) ----------------------------- CC.212/1993 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- AYISHUMMA. M., W/O. ALI MOHAMMED,PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. S. INDU, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I., TRIVANDRUM. 2. S. PRADEEPKUMAR, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I., KOZHIKODE. 3. T.RAGHAVAN, S/O.UNNI, NTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I., KOZHIKODE. 4. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.SIVANANDAN, INSPECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, 'SOORYAKANTHI', CHIRAKADAVAM, KAYAMKULAM, KOLLAM. 5. JOSEKUTTY GEORGE,S/O.P.D. VARKEY, INSPECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, KOZHIKODE. 6. S. ARUMUGHAN, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, DRIVER, D.R.I., KOZHIKODE. 7. THE STATE OF KERALA (ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI, CRIME NO.189/93), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1,R3 & R5BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN FOR SRI.THANKACHAN K.PAUL R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJETH ALI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.876 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April 2008 ORDER The defacto complainant in Crime No.189/93 of Manjeri Police Station has preferred this revision petition impugning the order of acquittal passed by the trial court relying on the dictum laid down in Raj Deo Sharma V. State of Bihar [1999 (1) KLT 173]. But a larger Bench of the apex court in Ramachandra Rao V. State of Karnataka [2002 (4) SCC 578] has overruled the above decision. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. 2. It is true that petitioner had also contributed to the delay in disposal of the case to some extent as could be seen from the order of the learned Magistrate. But learned counsel submits that there was no willful default on the part of the petitioner. He assures that the petitioner will co- operate with the court below for a speedy disposal. I have heard learned counsel for respondents also. Crl.R.P.No.876 OF 2000 :: 2 :: 3. The above submission is recorded. The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The court below shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. Since it is a very old case, the learned Magistrate shall give priority and shall ensure that it is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes