IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3574 of 2007()
1. JOSEPH, PULIYAMPILLY HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, LAKSHMI VILASOM,
... Respondent
2. SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN, ROOPESH BHAVAN,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.H.SIVARAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3574 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against an order passed by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 138 Cr.P.C. making
absolute an earlier conditional order passed under Section 133
Cr.P.C. By the said order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had
directed that one Anjili tree and two coconut trees which stand
in the property in the possession and control of the petitioner
and which lean over the adjacent house of the complainant be cut
and removed.
2. The conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was
duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance
and filed a counter statement. He asserted that he is not the title
holder of the property. The records show and it is not disputed
that the property belongs to the daughter of the petitioner herein,
who as also her husband are both employed abroad. Virtually
there is no plea or contention that the petitioner is not in
management of the property in question, where the trees in
Crl.R.P.No. 3574 of 2007
2
question stand. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, before passing the
conditional order, had obtained a report from the Village Officer, in
which it was confirmed that the trees stand in a dangerous condition
posing imminent danger to the house of the complainant and its
occupants.
3. In fact the impugned order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. further
shows that both parties were heard and “the counter petitioner
(petitioner herein) admits that the trees are in a dangerous condition”.
Be that as it may, the only technical ground which is raised before me
is that the petitioner is not the title holder and consequently he cannot
be directed to cut and remove the trees. The counter statement filed
does not show that any objection whatsoever was raised against the
assertion that the trees were in a dangerous condition and they pose
imminent danger to the complainant’s house.
4. The direction in the instant case has been issued not to a
stranger, but to the petitioner, who, without dispute is the father of the
title holder and is looking after the interests of the title holder in the
property in the absence of the title holder in India. I am, in these
circumstances, satisfied that the very technical objection raised that the
Crl.R.P.No. 3574 of 2007
3
petitioner is not the title holder cannot be held to persuade this Court to
invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction.
5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and
contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and
correction vested in this Court. Any and every error committed by a
subordinate court shall not ipso facto persuade this Court to
mechanically invoke its revisional powers of superintendence and
correction. The conscience of the Court must be satisfied that failure
of justice does result by the alleged incorrectness/impropriety in the
proceedings/order. I find no incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order. The mere fact that the person in
management of the property does not have title over the property shall
not vitiate an order issued under Sections 133 and 138 Cr.P.C. At any
rate, revisional interference is not warranted.
6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge