Kerala High Court
Sasidharan Pillai M.G vs P.J. Jayan Pillai on 4 June, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1068 of 2014
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER NO. 2589/14/B3 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, THIRUVALLA (EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE) DATED 04-06-2014
REVISION PETITIONER:
---------------------
SASIDHARAN PILLAI M.G., AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.LATE M.N.GOPALA PILLAI, MELETHIL HOUSE,
MAMPARA P.O., KAKKAD MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE,
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689 711.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.S.JUSTUS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. P.J. JAYAN PILLAI,
S/O.LATE PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI, JAYA VILASOM,
MAMPARA P.O., KAKKAD MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE,
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 711.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE),
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689 101.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1068 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.2589/14/B3
ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.33/2014 ON
THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI
ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI IN
I.A.NO.197/2014 IN O.S.NO.33/2014
ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE RANNI, PERUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
ab
P.UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.R.P No.1068 of 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2014
O R D E R
A provisional order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla in exercise of the powers as Executive Magistrate, on a complaint brought under Section 133 Cr.P.C, is under challenge in this revision.
2. On a perusal of the case records, including the impugned order, I find that this revision is not maintainable. What is passed by the Executive Magistrate is only a provisional order. The revision petitioner can very well make appearance, make contest, and he can bring revision when final order is passed. A provisional order as such cannot be challenged by way of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Hence this revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.
In the result, this revision is dismissed in limine.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab