JOSEPH ANTONY Vs. V.M. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the defacto-complainant in C.C.No. 487/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalapuzha, and the respondents 1 to 10 are the accused in the said case. The complainant initiated prosecution, on the allegation that a gang of persons including the accused trespassed into the property in his possession in Survey Nos. 309/4, 9, 309/6, 309/7B and 312/1 at about 8.30 am on 21.08.1998 as part of a criminal design hatched by them, and in prosecution of the common object, they destroyed various standing trees and improvements therein, and illegally formed a road by appropriating a portion of the property at the boundary.

(2.) All the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 427 and 188 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC. The Police incorporated Section 188 IPC in the final report on the allegation that the accused committed the acts of trespass and mischief in violation of the decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha in O.S No. 116/1998. For cognizance under Section 188 I.P.C, there must be a complaint by the public servant concerned. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved Exhibits P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and in defence, they examined one witness as DW1 and also proved Exhibit D1. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found all the accused not guilty of any of the offences, and accordingly they were acquitted by Judgment dated 19.09.200 Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the de facto-complainant has come up in this revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment.

(3.) On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials, I find no scope of interference in revision, in the Judgment of acquittal of the trial court.