Dismissed

K.M.Yousuf v. Ahammad Kunju

Kerala HC25 May 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1719/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of discharge in a theft case. The revision petitioner argued that the trial court erred in finding evidence insufficient to frame charges against the accused for breaking into a shop.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed as the impugned order of discharge was held regular and proper.

K.M.Yousuf Vs Ahammad Kunju — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1719 OF 2003

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 362/2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT :

¶8

K.M.YOUSUF
S/O MOITHEENKUTTY,
KALEECKAL VEEDU, MUTHOOR MURI,
THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK
BY ADV K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
ADV.ARAVIND T.H.

¶9

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 AND STATE :

¶10

1 AHAMMAD KUNJU S/O IBRAHIMKUTTY, KAVALACKAL VEEDU, KOLLAKKADAVU, KADAYILKKADU MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK.

¶11

2 HUMAYOON B/O AHAMMADKUNJU, KAVALACKAL VEEDU, KOLLAKKADAVU, KADAYILKKADU MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK

¶12

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS. S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.Rev.P.No.1719 of 2003

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶17

......…..................................

¶18

Crl.Rev.P.No.1719 of 2003

¶19

….................................. Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.362/2002 on

¶22

the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. By order dated 26.02.2003, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused, under Section 245(i) Cr.P.C., after noticing that the evidence adduced by the revision petitioner/complainant is not sufficient and reliable to frame a charge against the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order of discharge, this revision petition has been preferred.

¶23

According to the revision petitioner, on 23.08.1998 at around midnight, the accused trespassed into the shop room of the petitioner after breaking open the lock and committed theft of furniture worth Rs.2,00,000/- and also committed theft of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the drawer of the table kept inside the shop room and thereby committed the offences

¶24

Crl.Rev.P.No.1719 of 2003

¶25

¶26

alleged.

¶27

The learned Magistrate, on an appreciation of the evidence of

¶28

PW1/the complainant, noticed that there was absolutely no material produced to show that petitioner was the tenant of

¶29

the shop room or that he was in occupation of the said shop room. There was also no evidence produced to show that the accused had trespassed into the shop room on 23.08.1998 and committed theft either of any amount or of any furniture. The learned Magistrate also observed that the complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that the conduct of any business in the said shop room, and therefore, no evidence had been adduced, which would warrant a conviction, if unrebutted.

¶30

On an appreciation of the circumstances of the case and also considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is regular and proper. The evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient or reliable to

¶31

frame a charge against the accused. Therefore, the

¶32

Crl.Rev.P.No.1719 of 2003

¶33

¶34

impugned order does not warrant any interference. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶35

sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶36

AMV/25/05/2023

K.M.Yousuf v. Ahammad Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Yousuf v. Ahammad Kunju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhil Raj Pallissery, Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

V.D.Mathew Vs John v.D.*

Anitha P George Vs State Police Chief

M.S.Pillai Vs Meenakshi Plastic Industries

M.S.Pillai Vs Meenakshi Plastic Industries