IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1040 of 2000 --------------------------------- CC.2/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.SIVADASAN, NADUVATHANA HOUSE, ANNASSERI, THALAKULATHOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.ABOOBACKER PULICKOOL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLILCE, KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. K. SIVAKESAVAN, MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, KAVARATHY. 3. MURALEEDHARAN, MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER, VYSYA BANK LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.USHA RAVINDRAN FOR R2&3 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1040 of 2000-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009. ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint. He had filed the above complaint against respondents No.2 and 3 herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 461 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after a meticulous and elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties on either side, held that petitioner/complainant had failed to make out a prima facie case against respondents 2 and 3. The learned Magistrate discharged the two accused under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order of discharge is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the petitioner/complainant may be briefly noticed. 3. Petitioner and his wife had availed of a Safety Locker facility in the Syndicate Bank, Mavoor road branch in Calicut in June 1992. The locker number was 67. According to the complainant, he and his wife had operated the locker and kept some ornaments in it on October 22, 1992. He had again operated the locker on May 11, 1993; but on this occasion he had taken his sister along with him because his wife was not well. On October Crl.RP.1040/2000 2 13, 1993 petitioner went to the Bank to open the locker along with his wife. But the locker could not be opened with the key given to him by the bank. Though the bank Manager tried to get a mechanic to find out what the problem was, his attempt was in vain. Therefore the complainant was asked to report to the Bank on the next day. The Mechanic also failed in his attempt to open the lock but the then Manager (accused No.2) took the key from the complainant and tried it on locker No.35. The said locker was opened with that key. But the complainant could not open his locker (locker No.67). 4. Therefore he filed a complaint against the Bank authorities before the Police. Since the Police did not take any action in the matter, a private complaint was filed on April 22, 1994. The complaint was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. After the Police took up the investigation, the locker was broken open and it was found that it was empty. Complainant alleged that he had kept the following ornaments worth Rs. One lakh in the locker: “1. One 'Mangamala' weighing 5 sovereigns. 2. One 'Urvasi' chain weighing 6 coverings. 3. One wring weighing one sovereign. 4. Six bracelets weighing 6 sovereigns. 5. Nine bracelets weighing 9 sovereigns.” The complainant further alleged that the two accused who were Crl.RP.1040/2000 3 working in the Bank as Managers during the relevant period had committed the offences referred to above. However the Police after conducting investigation referred the case since no offence was made out. It was thereafter that the complainant filed the present protest complaint against respondents 2 and 3. Cognizance was taken and evidence was adduced. The complainant got himself examined as Pw.1. Pws.2 to 4, were also examined on his side. Exts.P1 to P7 and M.O.1 key of the locker were also marked on his side.. Exts.D1 and D2 series were marked on the side of the defence. 5. As mentioned earlier, the learned Magistrate after an elaborate and careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the complainant had failed to make out a prima facie case against the two accused. It had come out in evidence that on May 10, 1993 the then Manager who had been allotted locker No.35 happened to operate said locker. After removing all the valuables from the locker the Manager had accidentally left the key of the said locker in the locker room. The records produced by the Bank clearly revealed that locker No.35 was being used by the then Manager and that he had surrendered the same to the Bank on May 10, 1993. The complainant had operated his locker (No.67) on the next day viz., May 11, 1993. According to the defence, the complainant might have taken away the key of locker No.35 when he came to the locker room with his Crl.RP.1040/2000 4 sister. 6. As mentioned earlier, on October 13, 1993 when the complainant had gone to the locker room again with his wife, he could not open his locker with the key that he brought along with him. It was at that stage that the successor Manager had tried to open locker No.35. This had persuaded the Bank authorities to believe that the complainant might have taken away the key of locker No.35 which was inadvertently left behind by the previous Manager, who had vacated his locker on May 10, 1993. Anyhow, the learned Magistrate, after a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, had found that the complainant had failed to make out a prima facie case against the two accused. 7. I have carefully perused the materials available on record. I am satisfied that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is eminently legal and proper. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.