MANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition was in fact, sought to be registered against the order dated 02.06.2014 in M.C. No. 371/10M of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi. The Registry noted an objection to the effect that the impugned order is not in the proper form. The revision petitioner made a reply to the same stating that he obtained the same under the Right to Information Act. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner sought for posting the matter before the Bench and accordingly, at the instance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the case was posted before the Bench. In this context, it is to be noted that at least on four previous occasions, in respect of the subject matter involved in this case, the revision petitioner had to approach this court and by virtue of the orders the learned Magistrate was to pass an order under Sec. 137(2) Cr.P.C. in the pending petition filed under Sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. During the arguments, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this court that virtually no order was passed under Sec. 137(2) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate despite the specific direction issued by this court in that regard and it was without passing such an order that the order sought to be challenged was passed. Thereupon, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions in view of the aforesaid submissions. In the meanwhile, in M.C. No. 371/10M an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 12.03.2015, a copy of the same was produced by the learned Public Prosecutor along with a memo. A perusal of the same would reveal that it is essentially an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 137(2) Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances, the Registry was directed to number the revision petition and post it for admission and that is how, the matter came up today for consideration. In the light of the said subsequent developments, I am of the view that the grievance of the revision petitioner against Annexure -A1 pales into insignificance and in such circumstances, I think this revision petition can be disposed of considering the order dated 12.03.2015.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) It is not disputed before me that in view of the earlier orders passed by this court the learned Magistrate was under an obligation to pass an order under Sec. 137(2) Cr.P.C. Evidently, it is in compliance with the earlier directions that the order which was produced along with the memo by the learned Public Prosecutor viz., the order dated 12.03.2015 was passed. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: -