IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 552 of 2011() ------------------------- SC.449/2010 of III ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ................ REVISION PETITIONERS / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.M.SHAJAHAN, S/O.K.S.MUHAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS, KUNNATHAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. SHOUKATH, S/O.HAMEED, AGED 27 YEARS, ULIYATHALA HOUSE, VALIYAVEEDU LANE, K.M.P.BUS STOP, PALLURUTHY. 3. LIYAS, S/O.KHALID, PILATHARA HOUSE, AGED 49 YEARS, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, PALLURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI. S. RAJEEV RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT AND STATE : ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.931/2009 OF CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.552 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. ORDER The accused in SC No.449/2010 of the court of Sessions, Ernakulam are the revision petitioners, since they are aggrieved by the charge dated 17.01.2011 framed against them by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. I have heard Sri. S.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the order impugned as well as the documents produced by the revision petitioners along with this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel after inviting my attention to Annexure-I final report submitted that CWs. 4 and 5 mentioned by the learned Sessions judge in his charge are not public servants, but only are private persons as evident by the list of witnesses shown in the charge. The other submission of the learned counsel is that Sections 270, 353 and Section 308 are not attracted since from the charge and Annexure-I report itself, it is crystal clear that the necessary ingredients of those sections are not attracted. Thus, according to the learned counsel in the absence of any materials to proceed against the revision Crl.R.P.NO.552 OF 2011 2 petitioners for the above offences they will be prejudice and the petitioners have to undergo an orders of trial, unnecessary. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned charge, shown CWs.4 and 5 are public servants, due to a mistake and the prosecution has already filed a petition before that court on 1.3.2011 to correct the mistake. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the facts and circumstances involved in the case as born out from the records including Annexure -1 report, the learned Sessions Judge is fully correct and legal in framing a charge against the revision petitioners for the offence under Sections 270, 353, 308 and r/w Section 34 of IPC. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Public Prosecutor. As evident by the witness list to Annexure-A1 charge, CWs.1 and 2 are the police persons and therefore, according to me it is only due to over site the learned Sessions Judge instead of CWs.1 and 2 mentioned CW4 and 5 as the public servants in the charge which can be corrected by the said court especially in the light of the report filed by the prosecuting agency on 01.03.2011 to that effect. All other contentions of the Crl.R.P.NO.552 OF 2011 3 learned counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients of Sections 270,353,308 and r/w Section 34 of IPC not attracted, according to me the same is not sustainable in the light of Annexure-1 Police report. On a reading of Annexure-I report prima facie it appears to me that the learned Sessions judge is perfectly justified in framing a charge against the revision petitioner for the said offences. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, whether the ingredients of the sections alleged against the petitioners are attracted or not is to be considered, on the basis of the evidence to be let in during the trial and not at this stage. In the result, I find no merit to interfere with the charge the charge framed by the learned sessions judge and the learned sessions judge is to make appropriate correction, even for alter the charge at appropriate time and stage of the trial. Thus, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm