Jimsy Toniyo@Jaison@Jimsaon vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 5275 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jimsy Toniyo@Jaison@Jimsaon vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 494 OF 2022
      CRIME NO.174/2016 OF THANKAMANI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 70/2022 IN CC 357/2018 OF
          JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAPPANA


REVISION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

          JIMSY TONIYO @JAISON @JIMSAON,
          S/O ANTONY, MADUKKOLLIL HOUSE, SANTHIGRAM KARA,
          ERATTAYAR VILLAGE

          BY ADV S.SACHITHANANDA PAI


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

          STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM


          PP SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 494 OF 2022

                                             2


                                       ORDER

The accused No.2 came up against the dismissal of

a discharge application by the trial court. The

offence alleged is under Section 420 IPC. The crime

was registered based on a reference under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. of the complaint submitted. The

allegation is pertaining to the sale of some black

pepper to accused No.1 by the complainant. The

allegation is that the purchase money was not given

to him in time as agreed. The pepper was

subsequently sold by accused No.1 to accused No.2.

But he did not pay the sale consideration to accused

No.1. Going by the pleading raised in the complaint

and the final report submitted, it is clear that the

material ingredient which would constitute the

offence under Section 420 IPC is absent as against

the second accused, who had purchased some pepper

from accused No.1. The failure to pay the sale

consideration to accused No.1 may not be a ground to

be agitated by a complainant as against accused No.2. CRL.REV.PET NO. 494 OF 2022

Admittedly, there is no privity of contract or

transaction between the complainant and the accused

No.2. The basic principle governing the area was

overlooked by the officer who laid the final report

as against accused No.2 and by the learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate, who had rejected the

discharge application without touching on the

material aspects. Hence, the same will stand set

aside. The discharge application will stand allowed.

Accused No.2 is discharged and set at liberty. Bail

bond, if any executed will stand cancelled.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp