IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2673 of 2007(R)
1. MUHAMMED KASSIM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE: S.I. OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/01/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 2673 of 2007 R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
227 of the Constitution to assail the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge in a suo moto revision initiated by him.
2. The accused faces indictment for the offence under Section
420 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, without examining even one
witness, proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that
witnesses have not been procured to tender evidence. The learned
Sessions Judge, in the course of perusal of calender, found the
acquittal to be unjustified. He called for the records. The learned
Magistrate – subsequent incumbent – sent to the learned Sessions
Judge a letter explaining the facts. It is thereafter that the impugned
order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the revision.
3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. What is the grievance? The counsel first of all submits that
necessary steps were taken, but inspite of that witnesses were not
W.P.C.No. 2673 of 2007 2
present. The learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied that sufficient,
serious and worthy attempts were taken to secure the presence of the
accused. Evidently the conscience of the court was disturbed that such an
acquittal could be resorted to. I find absolutely nothing wrong in the
conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the acquittal without securing
the presence of any relevant witness is unjustified. The learned Sessions
Judge, I note, had alertly exercised his duties and responsibilities sitting as a
court perusing calender statements. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied
that the impugned order cannot be faulted for that reason.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contends that the
Sessions Judge’s power of revision under Section 399 Cr.P.C. are different
from the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
There can be no quarrel with that proposition. The decision in John
Samuel v. State of Kerala (1985 KLT 902) has reiterated the position
beyond controversy. But in the instant case, it is not a case where the
records were before the learned Sessions Judge in connection with any
other proceedings. The impugned order makes it clear that it was he who
called for and perused the records, of course, on the basis of the letter of the
Magistrate. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it cannot be held that
W.P.C.No. 2673 of 2007 3
the impugned action taken by the Sessions Judge is beyond the scope of his
powers under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as explained in the decision cited supra.
5. This writ petition is hence dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm