IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 567 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.554/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.2, 4, & 5 ------------------------------------------ 1. P.V.EBRAHIM 72 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN, VANEKARATHU VEETTIL NO.VI/1266, PAYYANGADI, NEAR RAILWAY STATION (EAST), MADAI VILLAGE, CANNANORE. 2. M.V.MOHAMAD ASHRAF, S/O.P.V.EBRAHIM VANEKARATHU VEETTIL, NO.VI/1266 PAYYANGADI, NEAR RAILWAY STATION(EAST), MADAI VILLAGE, CANNANORE. 3. M.V.ABDULLA, S/O.P.V.EBRAHIM VANEKARATHU VEETTIL NO.VI/1266, PAYYANGADI, NEAR RAILWAY STATION (EAST), MADAI VILLAGE, CANNANORE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. IMPEX TRADERS, G-S, SURABHI, PALACE VIEW APARTMENT, GUJARATHI ROAD, KOCHI-682002.. 3. M.V.MAHMOOD, S/O.P.V.EBRAHIM, VANEKARATHU VEETTIL, NO.VI/1266 PAYYANGADI, NEAR RAILWAY STATION(EAST) MADAI VILLAGE, CANNANORE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ................................................. Crl.R.P. No. 567 of 2009 ................................................ Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009. O R D E R Accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in C.C. No. 554 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Kochi, are the petitioners in this Revision. They challenge the order passed by the Magistrate framing court charge for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. It is too early to consider the intention and conduct of the parties so as to come to a finding either way to hold whether the aforesaid offences are made out or not. If any observation is made by this Court at this stage of the case it will definitely prejudice one party or other. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, I dismiss this Revision leaving it to the petitioner to plead for an acquittal after the trial of the case. Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/