IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 609 of 2001() ------------------------------------ CRA.308/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.354/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MUVATTUPUZHA .......................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------- PAUL MATHEW, MUDACKAL HOUSE, POTHANICAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BHSKAKRAN, S/O. ANANDAN, PULLATU, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. 3. THOMAS, S/O. PATHROSE, PUTHENPURAYIL, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. 4. PATHROSE, S/O. YOHANNAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. 5. SONY, S/O. MATHAI, PUTHENPURAYIL, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. 6. JOSE, S/O. VARGHESE, PULIYAMPILLY VEEDU, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. 7. VINCENT, S/O.MATHAI, KOORAKKUNNEL, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. 8. PAULOSE, S/O. SHOURIAR, EDAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, POTHANICAD KARA, POTHANICAD VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2TO8 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.609 of 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The defacto complainant in CC.354/94 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Muvattupuzha is the revision petitioner. Upon the basis of a First Information Statement given by the revision petitioner, the Station House Officer, Pothanicad Police Station registered a case as against respondents 2 to 8 and after investigation a charge sheet was filed alleging offence u/s.143, 147, 427 and 447 r/w 149 IPC. The learned Magistrate after trial found respondents 2 to 8 guilty for offences u/s.143, 147, 427 and 447 r/w 149 IPC. Consequentially they were convicted and sentenced. 2. Respondents 2 to 8 took up the matter in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam as Criminal Appeal No.308/2000. The learned Sessions Judge, on a reappraisal arrived at a finding that the offence alleged against respondents 2 to 8 were not established by evidence. Consequently the appeal was allowed and respondents 2 to 8 were acquitted. Assailing the above CRRP.609/01 2 order of acquittal the revision petition was preferred by the defacto complainant. 3. Today when the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled out of court and that the revision petition is not pressed. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. On a perusal of the judgment of the court below, I find that the appellate court evaluated the evidence on record and arrived a right finding of acquittal. There is no error, illegality or impropriety in that order so as to be interfered in revision. In the above circumstances, revision petition is dismissed. (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) sou