IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 936 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.262/1996 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PWS 1 AND 2 IN CC: --------------------- 1. SMT.B.SIVALEELA, W/O.SRI K.THANKAPPAN, RTD. DISTRICT JUDGE, KARUKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, V.V.ROAD, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI K.THANKAPPAN, RTD. DISTRICT JUDGE,-DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.V.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED IN CC: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION GROUP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI C.N.RAJU, ANIL COTTAGE, NEAR ARTS COLLEGE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FOR R3 SRI.R.SREERAJ FOR R3 SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR R3 SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN FOR R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.936 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008. ORDER Heard. 2. Counsel for revision petitioners submits that the matter has become infructuous. 3. Defacto complaint in C.C.No.262 of 1996 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram preferred this revision petition, aggrieved by the release of third respondent (who was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code), under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (for short, 'the PO Act') on executing bond for Rs.10,000/-. Charge against the third respondent was that he misappropriated the ornaments and money belonging to the defacto complainant's daughter and thereby committed the offence. 4. Counsel for third respondent submitted, and it is conceded by the counsel for revision petitioners also that during the pendency of revision, third respondent challenged his conviction and release under Section 4 of the PO Act in Crl.Appeal No.314 of 2001 and learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 29.3.2006 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. A copy of the judgment was given to Crl.R.P.No.936/2001 2 me for perusal. It is seen that appeal was allowed and conviction of the third respondent was set aside. As such, this revision petition has become infructuous and is not required to be decided on merit. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. Crl.M.P.No.4439 of 2001 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.936/2001 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.936 of 2001 ORDER 11th December, 2008.