IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3604 of 2009() ------------------------------ SC.465/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1,3,5 TO 13: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. GURUVAYURAPPAN @ SASIKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 36 YEARS, THANKAM NIVAS, NANNIYODE, PATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAN @ KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KURUMANNANPALLAM COLONY, ARANDAPALLAM, NALLEPILLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SHANMUGHAN, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 34 YEARS, AMBATTUPARAMBU, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. PARTHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 31 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KORIYARCHALLA, PERUMATTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. GOGULDAS, S/O.PONNU, AGED 30 YEARS, MUTHALAMTHODU, PERUMATTI, KUTTIPALLAM, PERUMATTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SURESH BABU, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS, IDAYANKOLUMBU VEEDU, KORIYARCHALLA, PERUMATTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. C.BALAN S/O.CHAMY, AGED 53 YEARS, PULINKAVU, VANDITHAVALAM, PATTHENCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. VIJAYAN S/O.KITTA, KUNNATHU HOUSE, MUTHUKADU, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3604 of 2009() 2 9. SIVAPRAKASH @ S.P., S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, MOOTHA CHETTIKULAMBU, THURISUMUKKU, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 10. GHOSH S/o.KUNJUKUTTAN PALLATHAMPULLY, THATHAMANGALAM CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 11. AJITH DEV S/O. DAMODHARAN, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, MUTHALAMADA ROAD, NANNIYOD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3604 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are the accused 1,3 and 5 to 13 in Sessions case No.465 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Palakkad. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chittor Police Station in Crime No.165 of 2002 filed a charge sheet against 13 accused alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 114 and 120B read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(b) of Indian Arms Act. All the accused applied before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the impugned order dated 22/10/2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the petition. Now this revision is filed assailing the said order. It is submitted that the 4th accused is no more and the 2nd accused had not cared to challenge the order. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the revision petition was filed by accused Nos. 1,3 and 5 to 13 he is pressing the petition only in respect of Crl.R.P.No.3604 of 2009 2 accused Nos. 9 to 13. That submission is recorded. He would argue that accused 9 to 13 were implicated with allegation of criminal conspiracy and that the statements of none of the witnesses would mention about their involvement. The learned counsel had fairly submitted that there is some materials as against the accused Nos.1 to 8. But, before the trial court, all the accused had sought for discharge. In the event, accused Nos.9 to 13 were implicated as conspirators and there is no statement of the witnesses implicating them, it would have been argued specifically before the trial court. The order impugned did not show that such an argument was advanced before the trial court and learned Additional Sessions Judge had no occasion to consider such an argument. In the above circumstance, I find that the matter requires a re-consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While setting aside the order impugned as regards accused 9 to 13, the matter is remitted back to the trial court to consider afresh as to whether there are materials to connect accused Nos.9 to 13 with the offences alleged and to pass a fresh order in accordance with Crl.R.P.No.3604 of 2009 3 the law. In the event, accused Nos.9 to 13 so proposes they are at liberty to file a separate petition. In the event such a petition is filed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall consider that petition also and dispose it. Criminal Revision Petition as regards accused Nos.1,3 & 5 to 8 (revision petitioners 1 to 6) would stand dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.