Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE8H DAY OF OCTOBER201316TH ASWINA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 4102 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN CRL.RP3992009 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED1709-2010 ------------ PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, CHERUPARA HOUSE, ENKAKAD VILLAGE AND DESOM TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.JIMMY.N.JOSEPH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. BINDHU MOHAN, SECRETARY, SOWPARNIKA KUDUMBASREE UNIT, PUDUSSERY CHERUTHURUTHI, THALAPPILLY TALUK.
3. NISHA, PRESIDENT, SOWPARNIKA KUDUMBASREE UNIT, PUDUSSERY, CHERUTHURUTHI THALAPILLY TALUK. R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.VIJU THOMAS R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------ Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2013 ORDER
This Crl.M.C filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is for quashing Annexure-A8 order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure-A5 order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 138 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
3. The second respondent who is the Secretary of a Kudumbasree unit and the third respondent who is the President of that Kudumbasree unit had preferred a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner constructed iron fencing Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 -2- around his 76 cents of paddy field and due to the same the agriculturists of the locality including the respondents 2 and 3 herein were prevented from taking agricultural implements to their paddy fields and, in turn, obstructing the cultivation of paddy in their fields. Therefore, they prayed for removing such obstruction in order to enable the respondents 2 and 3 and others to have the agricultural operations in their paddy fields. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Additional Tahsildar on the matter. He had reported that the petitioner herein constructed iron fencing around his paddy field measuring 76 cents and due to this the respondents 2 and 3 and other agriculturists were unable to bring tractors and agricultural implements to their paddy fields. Also reported that immediate action was required for removing the obstruction. On considering that report, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate issued Annexure-A3 conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C on 03-12-2008 directing the petitioner Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 -3- herein to remove the iron fencing from his paddy field and restore his paddy field to its original position and, if he objects to do so, to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court and to show cause why the order thus passed should not be made absolute and enforced.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner herein appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and filed Annexure-A4 objections. Then the case was adjourned for evidence. The respondents 2 and 3 herein submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court on 27-05-2009 that they had no oral evidence to be adduced. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 12-06-2009 for the evidence of the petitioner herein. But, he had not adduced any evidence on that day and the case stood posted on 16-10-2009, 06-11-2009 and 13-11-2009 as requested by the petitioner herein for adducing his evidence. But on the subsequent days also, he had not adduced any evidence. When the case stood posted on 18-12-2009, the petitioner herein again sought for Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 -4- further time for adducing evidence. Finding that the petitioner was attempting to drag the matter without any justifiable reasons, the prayer of the petitioner for further time was turned down and the conditional order issued by the court on 03-12-2008 was made absolute by issuing Annexure-A5 order. The petitioner herein was directed to remove the iron fencing erected by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5. The petitioner herein preferred Crl.M.C No.3684/2009 before this Court for quashing Annexure-A3 conditional order. That was disposed of by this Court by Annexure-A6 order dated 21-12-2009 granting liberty to the petitioner herein to challenge Annexure-A5 order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner preferred Annexure-A7 Crl.R.P. No.399/2009 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed that Criminal Revision Petition by Annexure-A8 order. Aggrieved by Annexure-A8 order passed by the learned Sessions Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 -5- Judge, the petitioner has preferred this Crl.M.C under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner did not get a fair opportunity before the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court for adducing evidence substantiating his case. Therefore, he prays for interfering with the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner had elaborately dealt with the matter touching all the relevant aspects. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had also given cogent and justifiable reasons for disallowing the prayer for further time for adducing evidence made by the petitioner on 18-12-2009. Going by Annexure-A5 order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, it goes without saying that sufficient and more opportunity had been given to the petitioner for adducing evidence. Several opportunities Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 -6- spreading over a period of more than six months had been given to the petitioner for adducing evidence before the Sub Divisional Magistrate to substantiate his case. The petitioner had not chosen to adduce evidence making use of those opportunities. In such a circumstance, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was not granted sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court. This Court does not find any reason at all for interfering with either the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or the order passed by the Sessions Court. There is no merit in this Crl.M.C. Therefore, this Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed and hence, it is dismissed. Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl. M. C. No.4102 of 2010 -7-