IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 254 of 2008() ---------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 31/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD. K.DIS.8673/2002/C of REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.K.SHAM BHAT, AGED 71, S/O.SHUM BHAT, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SAVITHRI AMMA, AGED 66, W/O.K.SHAM BHAT, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. DR.K.KRISHNA BHAT, AGED 41, S/O.K.SHAM BHAT, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI. K. JAYAKUMAR, SRI. P.B. KRISHNAN SRI. HARISH R. MENON SRI. SOORAJ KUMAR R. RESPONDENTS: REVISION PETITIONERS/COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. E.RAVINDRAN NAIR, AGED 52, S/O.K.P.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. CRL.R.P. NO. 254/2008 : 2 : 2. K.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 60, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. K.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 46, S/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. C.ABOOBACKER, AGED 44, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. AHAMMAD @ MOHAMMAD C., AGED 61, S/O.MAMMUNHI, BEARY, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. C. MOIDU, AGED 56, S/O. MAMMUNHI, RESIDING AT CHAMBILAKKAI, KANATHUR POST, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 7. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 254 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008. ORDER The petitioners herein were the counter petitioners in a proceeding before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod at Kanhangad. Respondents 1 to 6 herein moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate alleging obstruction by the revision petitioners to the pathway claimed to be a public pathway. The Revenue Divisional Officer called for reports of the Tahsildar and the Village Officer. The sketch submitted by the Village Officer and the report submitted by the Tahsildar spelt out the existence of a pathway running through the property of the revision petitioners and an obstruction caused to the same. However, without passing a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the Revenue Divisinal Officer proceeded further and conducted an enquiry with the participation of the revision petitioners who were the counter petitioners before the R.D.O and finally passed an order dated 30.06.2003 dropping the proceedings holding that there is no public pathway and that this was not a fit case to initiate action CRL.R.P. NO. 254/2008 : 2: under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged by respondents 1 to 6 herein before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod by filing Crl.R.P. No. 31 of 2003. The learned Sessions Judge as per the impugned order dated 21.07.2004 concluded that the procedure followed by the R.D.O was irregular and directed him to pass a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C and then to proceed to conduct an enquiry after notice to the revision petitioners herein. 2. There cannot be any exception taken to the order passed by the Sessions Judge in revision. When the report of the Tahsildar coupled with the sketch submitted by the Village Officer did show the existance of a pathway which was obstructed and which prima facie, indicated that the pathway was being used by the respondents 1 to 6 herein, that was a circumstance which should have informed the R.D.O to pass a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C and to call upon the revision petitioners who were the counter petitioners to enter appearance, file their objections and substantiate their objections in denial of the alleged public nature of the pathway. That was not done. CRL.R.P. NO. 254/2008 : 3: Instead the R.D.O was conducting an enquiry behind the back of the complainant before him to finally conclude that there is no public pathway warranting action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The said conclusion could not have been reached without passing a conditional order, giving an opportunity to the counter petitioners therein, conducting an enquiry and passing a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. I see no ground to interfere with the revisional order of the Sessions Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 254/2008 : 4: