IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3397 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.1087/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN.PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- E.N.ASHOK KUMAR,S/O.NARAYANAN, ERANEZHATH HOUSE,VALAPPADU P.O.,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.LIJO KURIAN JOSE SRI.LIJO KURIAN JOSE RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2: ------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, (SUB INSPECTOR,VALAPAPD POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.399/2007),REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. PRAVEEN,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS,VELAMBATH HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.RAMANKUNJI, AGED 64 YEARS,VELAMBATH HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI HRITHWIK SRI.RAJIT FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3397 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.1087 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodugallur. Upon a complaint filed by the revision petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police, Valapad registered a case as Crime No.99 of 2007. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against respondents 2 and 3 alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 I.P.C. Since the respondents 2 and 3 pleaded not guilty, they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. No defence evidence was let in. The learned magistrate on appraisal of the evidence, arrived a finding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case. Consequently, respondents 2 and 3 were acquitted under Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above judgment of acquittal, this revision petition was preferred. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the evidence of the defacto Crl.R.P.No.3397 of 2009 2 complainant who was examined as PW.2. PWs.1, 3 and 4 were examined to support the prosecutions. But they didn't support. Pws.5 and 6 are attestors to mahazars. PW.7 is the investigating officer. So, to support the prosecution, there is only the testimony of PW.2. Going by the evidence of PW.2, it is seen that the revision petitioner had been running a travel agency at Thriprayar which was shifted to Valapad and that the second respondent was inducted as a partner of the business. According to the revision petitioner, he invested Rupees six lakhs. But he was not given due share of the profit and he was not allowed to enter the business premises. The third respondent was alleged to be a person running the office. The evidence of PW.1 is not at all sufficient to arrive a conclusion that there was any entrustment of the money, that too with the respondents 2 and 3 or that there was any breach of trust. So also, there is no material to come to a conclusion that offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was committed by the respondents 2 and 3. Even if the case of the revision petitioner is true, there is only a cause for civil suit for establishing his right over the business, share of profit or return of the capital. There is no material to arrive a Crl.R.P.No.3397 of 2009 3 conclusion of fraudulent or dishonest inducement to part with the money or that any money was parted. 3. In the above circumstances, the learned magistrate was right in acquitting respondents 2 and 3. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. In the event the revision petitioner has got a case that he was denied right over the business or profit, remedy is left elsewhere. No offence under Section 406 or 420 I.P.C. is established. The revision petition is devoid of merit. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.