IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 722 of 2000(A) -------------------------------------- CRA.305/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.288/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANIRUDHAN, S/O.KANJILI PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MANNAMPETTA, AMBALLUR. 2. PANKAJAVALLY, W/O.ANIRUDHAN, MANNAMPETTA, AMBALLUR 3. THANKAMMA, W/O. PUTHAKARAN TOMY, CHENGALUR. 4. RAMAN NAIR, S/O.KUZHUPPULLI NARAYANAN NAIR, MANJOOR, NANDIPURAM 5. VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.MAMBILLI BALAKRISHNAN, VALANJAPADOM, CHENGALUR 6. PUSHPAN @ PUSHPANGADAN, S/O.CHEENATH RAVUNNI, VARAKKARA, AMBALLUR 7. THOMAS, S/O.CHUKKIRI OUSEPH, CHENGALUR BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANDARAPPILLY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 722 of 2000(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3919/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO.722/2000 DISMISSED 22.09.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL. R.P.No. 722 of 2000 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Criminal appeal No.305/1998. The conviction and sentence entered on the revision petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda in C.C. No.288/1993 were set aside and the case was remitted to the trial court for Denovo trial after framing proper charge against the Revision petitioners in the light of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment. Revision petitioners are aggrieved and preferred this revision petition. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Revision petitioners were charge sheeted by the varandarappilly police for offences punishable under Sections 420,468, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions judge found that the trial court had not framed charge against the revision petitioners properly and held that the non-framing of proper charge CRL.R.P.No. 722 /2000 2 caused prejudice. It is on that finding that judgment of the trial court was set aside and the case remitted as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the decision in State of Rajastan Vs. Dauwlat Ram[1980(3)SCC 303] submitted that the remand gave the prosecution an opportunity to fill up the 'gaps' or 'lacunae' in the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge ought not have remitted the case and instead acquitted the revision petitioners. 4. The only point for consideration in this Revision Petition as urged before me is whether the remand was justified in that, it gave the prosecution an opportunity to fill up the 'gaps' or 'lacunae'. “Gap” or “lacuna” is the inherent wedge in the prosecution matrix {Suja P. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala [1994(1) K.L.T 54] and Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell [1999(2) K.L.T.779-SC]}. In the case on hand, the police had submitted final report against the revision petitioners under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sufficient materials which according to the prosecution justified the final report were also produced in the trial court. The only defect noticed by the learned CRL.R.P.No. 722 /2000 3 Sessions Judge is the absence of proper and specific charge framed by the court against the revision petitioners. Failure to frame proper charge in the way found by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be understood as an inherent wedge in the prosecution matrix. As such, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel has no application. There is no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm