IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2698 of 2008()
1. A.M.SAINUDEEN, ANIYAVEETTIL, MANGARAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.PRADEEP, DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. ABILASH.P.MATHEW, BRANCH MANAGER,
3. SUNIL, MANAGER, SREERAM GROUP OF
4. ARUN - DO ------------
5. RAJEEV - DO-------------
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :16/09/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 2698 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the complainant and respondents 1 to 3, the
accused in Crl.M.P 1210 of 2007 in Crime No. 239 of 2005 on
the file of JFCM-II, Pathanamthitta. This revision petition is filed
challenging the dismissal of the complaint filed by petitioner
(Crl.M.P.1210 of 2007). Case of the petitioner is that in
furtherance of the common intention to commit decoity of Mini
Lorry KL-5Q 4625 belonging to petitioner, on 28.6.2005 at 9
am, the five accused committed decoity of mini lorry, which was
parked adjacent to the residential house of petitioner, along with
2300 kgs of rubber worth Rs.1,42,324/-. Konni police registered
the crime for offence under Section 395 of IPC. After
investigation, police filed a final refer report. The protest
complaint was filed thereafter. On the side of petitioner, he was
examined as CW1 and witness was examined as CW2 and
investigating officer as CW3.
2. Learned Magistrate, on the materials, found that there
is no evidence to prove that all or any of the accused committed
the offence. CW1 was not an eye witness. He was only giving
CRRP 2698/2008 2
evidence as disclosed to him by CW2. The evidence of CW2
discloses that he did not identify the persons who allegedly took
away the lorry. Evidence of CW3, the investigating Officer shows
that the lorry was seized by the finance company as provided
under the purchase agreement. It is on that basis, learned
Magistrate found that there is no ground to proceed against the
accused and dismissed the petition under Section 203 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner
vehemently argued that learned Magistrate should have
accepted the evidence of CW2 and CW1 and proceeded further, I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
Learned Magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence of
CW2. Evidence of CW2, who is the only eye witness to the
incident, is insufficient to connect any of the accused with the
offence alleged. In such circumstances, there is no reason to
interfere with the dismissal of the complaint.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-