IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3397 of 2009()
1. E.N.ASHOK KUMAR,S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. PRAVEEN,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
3. BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.RAMANKUNJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :25/11/2009
O R D E R
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.