IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4019 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRRP.134/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.968/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MARAVETTU VEETTIL, KONGAL MURI, KOTTAPPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SRI.BALA BINDU N. RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAMES K.JOHN, S/O.JOHN, KOCHUKALEEKAL VEEDU, KADIKA MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE.691526. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4019 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 26th October, 2010 O R D E R De facto complainant in C.C.968/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-C order of Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in Crl.R.P.134/2009 whereunder Annexure-B order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor in C.C.968/2003 acquitting the first respondent/accused was not interfered with by learned Sessions Judge. Case of the petitioner is that revisional Court did not properly consider the absence of fair trial and on the materials, learned Sessions Judge should Crmc 4019/10 2 have set aside the order of acquittal. 2. Prosecution case is that on 3/12/2002 at about 6 p.m first respondent trespassed into Samaniya Hospital and Poly Clinic run by the petitioner at Ezhakulam Panchayat and destroyed equipments in the hospital and caused a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby committed the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-B judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that only the petitioner and one eye witness were examined as PWs.1 and 2. Eye witness turned hostile and petitioner alone supported the case. Learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had obtained the building belonging to the second respondent on rent and it is his case that first respondent, obtained the key under the guise of carrying out repair and Crmc 4019/10 3 locked the room with another lock and took away articles after committing trespass. Learned Magistrate based on Exts.D1 and D2 judgment and decree of the civil suit found that the first respondent has instituted the suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the property against the petitioner and decree was granted against the petitioner and counter claim filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is in the light of the evidence learned Magistrate acquitted the first respondent/accused. Learned Sessions Judge found that there was no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate and in spite of coercive steps, presence of the other witnesses could not be procured. In such circumstances, revision was dismissed. Crmc 4019/10 4 3. On going through Annexures-B and C orders, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.