IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 643 of 2001()
1. E.V.MAHESH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of June 2008
ORDER
Petitioner was the defacto complainant in Crime
No.154/98 registered by Kozhikode Town Police against
respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 448, 506(1) IPC. The allegation
was that the accused had trespassed into the STD booth being
run by the defacto complainant under the pretext of collecting
rent of the building on June 10, 1998 at about 2 p.m.
According to the defacto complainant, the accused had
criminally intimidated him and threatened him that he would
throw out all the articles in the booth.
2. The court below at the conclusion of the trial found
that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the charge
against the accused. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted.
Petitioner has challenged the above order of acquittal in this
revision petition.
Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001
:: 2 ::
But, the main grievance of the petitioner appears to be
the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to initiate
proceedings against him under Section 250 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Petitioner contends that the said order is
totally unwarranted and unjustifiable. While acquitting the
accused, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the
petitioner directing him to show cause why he should not be
directed to pay compensation as provided under Section 250
of the Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that in
the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the
petitioner may not be able to successfully challenge the order
of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. But it is
contended by him that the direction of the Magistrate to
proceed against the petitioner under Section 250 is totally
unwarranted and unjustifiable.
It is on record that for some unknown reasons, the
prosecution had given up two independent eye witnesses.
Similarly, the doctor who had treated the petitioner after the
Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001
:: 3 ::
alleged incident was also not examined. The learned
Magistrate in the order had noticed the above aspects and
stated that the prosecution was conducted in a very
unsatisfactory manner. In that view of the matter, I am
satisfied that no further proceedings against the petitioner
under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
justified or warranted.
Therefore, the proceedings pending against the
petitioner in M.C.19/01 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class-I, Kozhikode shall stand quashed, if the above
proceeding has not been closed or disposed of already.
Criminal Revision Petition is allowed to the above extent
confirming the order of acquittal of the accused in the case.
(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
jes
Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001
:: 4 ::
A.K.BASHEER, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ORDER
Dated 6th June 2008