IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3238 of 2009() ------------------------------ Crl.M.P.1902/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS / ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. KALI, S/O. BUDRAN, AGED 22, ARALIKONAM OORU, PUDUR PANCHAYATH, PUDUR VILLAGE, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. BUDRAN, S/O.CHATHAN, AGED 50, DO. DO. BY ADV. MR. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. MR. LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY RANGER, PUDUR FOREST STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3238 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R 1. Revision petitioner is the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.1902/2009 in Crl.M.P No.1540/2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. Crl.M.P No.1540/2009 is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition on 05.06.09 and an order was granted for a period of one month on certain conditions. The prosecuting agency filed the petition Crl.M.P. No. 1902/09 alleging that there is failure on the side of the revision petitioner in complying with the conditions in the order dated 05.06.2009 in Crl.M.P No.1540/2009. 2. The learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 10.08.2009 disposed of the petition with an observation that the bail granted by that court on 05.06.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1540/2009 is not in force. Such a conclusion Crl.R.P.No. 3238 of 2009 2 was arrived at on noting that the order was granted only for one month. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order in Crl.M.P. No.1902/09, this revision petition was filed by the respondents. On going through the order in Crl.M.P.No.1540/2009 which is produced as Annexure A, it is seen that the order was granted only for a period of one month. In the meanwhile when the order in Crl.M.P.No.1902/09 was passed on 10.08.2009, the order in Crl.M.P No.1540/2009 already expired. It was rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the order in Crl.M.P No.1540/2009 is not in force. 4. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is not at all erroneous, improper or illegal. I find no merit in the revision petition. Hence it is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for regular bail, if so advised. In the event, the revision petitioner applies for regular bail, the magistrate concerned shall dispose of the application on Crl.R.P.No. 3238 of 2009 3 merits untrammelled by the observations in the impugned order. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE shg/