Celine Paul vs State And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 5748 Ker

Kerala High Court

Celine Paul vs State And Another on 20 February, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

CRL.REV.PET NO. 573 OF 2011

                                       1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
       TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 573 OF 2011
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.01.2011 IN CC 1631/2006 OF
                JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/AGGRIEVED PERSON:

             CELINE PAUL, AGED 48,
             D/O.K.U. UTHUPPAN, PALATTY AYIROOR.P.O, VIA KURUMASSERY,
             ERNAKULAM.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.S.RAJKUMAR
             SRI.N.JAGATH


RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED:

      1      STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 281/2006 OF ALUVA, POLICE STATION)

      2      MUHAMMADALI, S/O. ABOOBACKER,
             PADINJAREVEETTIL, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA.


             PP SRI SANAL P RAJ


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 573 OF 2011

                                              2


                                         ORDER

This revision is against the order of acquittal

of accused for the charges levelled against him

punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 10 of

Immigration Act, 1983. The acquittal was mainly on

the reason that the receipt produced issued by the

accused showing receipt of service charge did not

contain anything pertaining to the job offered in

Saudi Arabia. The specific case advanced by the

complainant is that she was made to believe that she

will get the job of a nurse in Saudi Arabia and under

that misrepresentation and by playing fraud on her

dishonestly received the amount covered by the

receipt. But, she was given the job of a cleaner

quite against the assurance given by the accused. PW1

to PW3 had given oral evidence in that behalf

asserting the assurance made by the accused and

receipt of the amount under that assurance.

Necessarily, it can be accepted if it is found to be

true and inspires confidence. That noble principle

was not followed by the trial court. Hence, the CRL.REV.PET NO. 573 OF 2011

impugned order will stand set aside. The parties

shall appear before the trial court on 04/03/2024 for

fresh consideration of the matter.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed

in part accordingly.

The earnest effort made by the learned Amicus

Curiae Adv.Aslam K.K. to assist this court is placed on

record.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp