IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.L.P..No. 310 of 2008() -------------------------- CC.38/2005 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- SUMA, PANACKAL VEEDU, WARD NO.13, PATTANAKKAD PANCHAYATH, VETTACKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE AND ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BRITTO, S/O.YESUDAS, PANACKAL VEEDU, ANTHAKARANAZHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. PRASANNA BABU, PURATHAMKUZHI VEEDU, WARD NO.13, PATTANAKKAD PANCHAYATH, VETTACKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.L.P..No. 310 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 O R D E R This application for leave is filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to enable the petitioner to challenge a judgment of acquittal in a private complaint filed by her. Three accused persons were named in the complaint. One of them was not available for trial. Accused 1 and 3 who faced trial were found not guilty and acquitted. It is alleged that the accused persons had trespassed into a property belonging to and in the possession of the petitioner and had indulged in acts of mischief in such property. 2. Before the Magistrate, the complainant/petitioner examined only herself as a witness. Exts.P1 to P6 were also marked. The learned Magistrate appears to have taken note of the fact that the complainant's version is uninspiring in the light of the earlier complaint, Ext.P1, filed by her to the State Woman Commission. The learned Magistrate took note of the incongruity relating to the incident as also the participation of the accused in the alleged crime. - 2 - The learned Magistrate further took note of the fact that though there were witnesses to the occurrence and one of them was examined, no better evidence than that of the petitioner was made available in support of the charges against the accused persons. It is in these circumstances that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that accused 1 and 3, who alone faced trial, are entitled for acquittal. 3. Leave is sought. Unless there is a reasonable chance for success leave cannot be granted and the accused persons do not deserve to be directed to appear before this Court. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs and having alertly reminded myself of the nature of jurisdiction of a Court considering appeal against acquittal, I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstance which can justify or warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction to grant leave under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 5. This Crl.L.P. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm