IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3690 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRMP 5522/2008 IN CC.1105/2005 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE , ADOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.ANANDAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, ARANOOTTIMANGALAM, MANGADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 3690 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petition is filed by first accused in C.C.1105/05 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor challenging dismissal of Crl.M.P.5522/08 filed for discharging the revision petitioner under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. Case of the revision petitioner is that as per prosecution case petitioner along with other accused committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 451, 427 and 112 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and it is the specific case that petitioner along with other accused committed offence on 31/1/2005 and the documents produced before the learned Magistrate establish that revision petitioner was in Gulf on that day and therefore learned Magistrate should have discharged the revision petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that prosecution has no case that petitioner was in India on 31/1/2005 and instead the very case is that he CRRP 3690/08 2 abetted the other accused to commit offences from Gulf and in such circumstances, for the reason that revision petitioner was not in India on 31/1/2005, he cannot be discharged as sought for. When the very prosecution case is that petitioner from out of India abetted the other accused and they committed the offences in furtherance of the common intention, revision petitioner cannot be discharged for the reason that he was not in India on the fateful day, as canvassed by the revision petitioner. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate. Revision petition is devoid of merit. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is working in Gulf and he may be granted one month's time to appear before the learned Magistrate. 3. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is permitted to surrender and apply for bail before learned Magistrate within one month. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.