IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 381 of 2004(C) ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2003 IN CMP 3662/03 IN CC.155/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS 2, 8 AND 9. ---------------------------------- 1. MANOHARAN NAIR, S/O.M.K.PADMANABHA PANICKER, BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KESAVAN ELAYATHU, BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, WILLINGDON ISLAND BRANCH, COCHIN - 3. 3. DIVAKARAN, S/O.SANKUNNI PILLAI, RESIDING AT RANNI HOUSE, JANATHA ROAD, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, VYTTILA (OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH). BY MR.M.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- KERALA STATE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.381 of 2004 ========================================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009. ORDER 1.The revision petitioners are accused 2, 8 and 9 in C.C.No.155 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom. The Station House Officer, Vaikom filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioners and six others alleging offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. The revision petitioners are officials of the Bank of India. The offences alleged are said to have been committed while granting loan in favour of accused 3 and 7 by mortgaging the property of the defacto complainant. 2.Alleging that the revision petitioners were no way involved with the offence alleged and that no offence was disclosed against them even by the CRRP381/04 -:2:- charge sheet, they approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.77 of 2000. That proceedings was disposed of with a direction to the third revision petitioner to approach the trial court seeking an order of discharge. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed C.M.P.3662 of 2003 before the trial court seeking an order of discharge. By the order impugned dated 19.12.2003, that petition was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “The prosecution case as well as the documents prima facie show that accused 2, 8 and 9 conspired with the remaining accused to commit the offence. Whether they had no mala fide intention has to be brought through the evidence alone. So, at this stage, I find no reason to discharge accused 2, 8 and 9.” 3.Though it is mentioned that the documents produced prima facie shows the involvement of the CRRP381/04 -:3:- revision petitioners, it is not mentioned as to which document and which of the witnesses implicates the involvement of the revision petitioners with the offence alleged. The opinion expressed by the trial court is very vague. Such being the nature of the order, no head or tail can be made out of the order. Since the opinion regarding the complicity of the revision petitioners without referring to the statement of any witness or document, it is rather impossible to arrive a conclusion whether the order impugned is anyway erroneous or improper. I find that the matter requires reconsideration by the trial court and a disposal with a brief speaking order. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal. The learned Magistrate shall CRRP381/04 -:4:- look into the statement of the witnesses and the documents produced and dispose of the petition by a brief speaking order. Forward the records forthwith. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.