IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 4462 of 2007()
1. JAYAPRAKASAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.GOPU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :13/12/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J
==========================
CRL.R.P. NO. 4462 of 2007
==========================
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2007.
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 291/2005 on
the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam which originated on
the basis of a charge sheet filed by the Central Police Station,
Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w
Section 34 and 120B IPC, challenges the order dated 30.10.2007
passed by the Magistrate refusing to discharge the revision petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused availed a
loan of Rs.6 lakhs on 31.08.2002 from Sree Ram Investments Ltd.,
for purchasing a vehicle and hypothicated the same with the financier
and the 2nd accused (revision petitioner) was the guarantor to the said
transaction and subsequently the two accused persons hatched a
criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention they
sold the vehicle and misappropriated the sale proceeds without
repaying the loan taken from the de facto complainant.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
submitted that charge witness Nos. 2 and 3 have not stated that the
revision petitioner had joined hands with the 1st accused for the
CRL.R.P. NO. 4462/2007 : 2:
clandestine sale of the vehicle and the misappropriation of the sale
proceeds and that the aforesaid two charge witnesses only presume
that the revision petitioner also would have been a privy to the secret
sale of the vehicle. In the light of the statement of CW2 to the effect
that both accused Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly cheating the financiers, it
is too early to accept the petitioners’ contention that there was no
material against the revision petitioner so as to frame charge. What
is necessary is only a prima facie case or a probable case. Hence, I do
not feel constrained to interfere with the order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. There is no reason the why the petitioner should
not stand trial and attempt to secure an acquittal.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 4462/2007 : 3: