IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4019 of 2010()
1. VIJAYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAMES K.JOHN, S/O.JOHN,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :26/10/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4019 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 26th October, 2010
O R D E R
De facto complainant in
C.C.968/2003 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court, Adoor filed this
petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-C
order of Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in
Crl.R.P.134/2009 whereunder Annexure-B
order passed by Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Adoor in C.C.968/2003
acquitting the first respondent/accused was
not interfered with by learned Sessions
Judge. Case of the petitioner is that
revisional Court did not properly consider
the absence of fair trial and on the
materials, learned Sessions Judge should
Crmc 4019/10
2
have set aside the order of acquittal.
2. Prosecution case is that on 3/12/2002 at about 6 p.m first respondent trespassed into Samaniya Hospital and Poly Clinic run by the petitioner at Ezhakulam Panchayat and destroyed equipments in the
hospital and caused a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and
thereby committed the offences under Sections
447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-B
judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that
only the petitioner and one eye witness were
examined as PWs.1 and 2. Eye witness turned
hostile and petitioner alone supported the
case. Learned Magistrate found that the
petitioner had obtained the building belonging
to the second respondent on rent and it is his
case that first respondent, obtained the key
under the guise of carrying out repair and
Crmc 4019/10
3
locked the room with another lock and took away
articles after committing trespass. Learned
Magistrate based on Exts.D1 and D2 judgment and
decree of the civil suit found that the first
respondent has instituted the suit seeking a
decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in
respect of the property against the petitioner
and decree was granted against the petitioner
and counter claim filed by the petitioner was
also dismissed. It is in the light of the
evidence learned Magistrate acquitted the
first respondent/accused. Learned Sessions
Judge found that there was no illegality or
irregularity committed by the learned
Magistrate and in spite of coercive steps,
presence of the other witnesses could not be
procured. In such circumstances, revision was
dismissed.
Crmc 4019/10
4
3. On going through Annexures-B and C
orders, I find no reason to interfere with the
order of acquittal.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.