IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 196 of 2009(D) ------------------------------ CMP.6611/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- RAJEEVAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PULIMOODU VEEDU, KETTAKKAKAM.P.O.ARYANAD, NADUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- STAE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.196 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P.No.6611 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad. He accused excise officials of the locality with offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). According to him on 20.2.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. accused Nos.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to him in furtherance of their common intention. He underwent treatment at PHC. He filed C.M.P.No.1642 of 2007 in the court below. That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police after detailed investigation submitted report stating that no such incident has taken place and that attempt was being made by certain persons including petitioner to harass excise officials who were engaged in detection of illicit distilling and sale of arrack in the locality. Notice of the refer report was given to the petitioner who filed C.M.P.No.6611 of 2007 raising the very same allegation. Sworn statement of complainant and two witnesses was recorded by learned magistrate. After consideration of all matters learned magistrate took the view that there is no ground to proceed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the complaint. Crl.R.P.No.196 of 2009 2 Hence this revision. Learned counsel submitted that consideration of materials made by the learned magistrate was not proper. He stated that at any rate petitioner may be given an opportunity to examine the further witnesses. 3. I called for the records of the case from the court below including the final report submitted by the police. It is seen from the final report that police questioned petitioner as well as eleven (11) witnesses including CWs 2 and 3 cited by the petitioner. Investigation revealed that on the relevant day and time petitioner was talking to one Sadasivan who was earlier engaged in illicit distillation and sale of arrack. Petitioner and the said Sadasivan were sitting in the house of the latter. At that time excise officials came there. On seeing the excise officials petitioner took to his heels along with backside of the house of Sadasivan. Excise officials searched the house of Sadasivan but nothing relating to distillation of illicit arrack could be seized. Excise party was conducting regular raids in and around the locality to stop illicit distillation and sale of illicit arrack. Petitioner tried to influence the excise officials but they did not yield . C.M.P.No.1642 of 2007 was filed much after the alleged incident on 20.2.2007. It is seen from the report that police had questioned even CWs 2 and 3 cited by the petitioner. Learned magistrate was not impressed by the materials produced by petitioner. In considering whether process has to be issued, learned magistrate had to go through the final report and connected documents produced under Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the materials collected under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The report submitted by police after investigation would stand on a Crl.R.P.No.196 of 2009 3 better pedestal which cannot be ignored. Learned magistrate has gone through the records and report and found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed. In such a situation in the absence of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in that finding, this Court is not required to interfere with that finding. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks