NARAYANAN Vs. VIDYADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were office bearers of the Ambalapuzha Taluk S.N.D.P. Union. They published a notice exhorting the members of the union to contribute liberally towards a ten lakh fund for the purchase of 3.04 acres of property and buildings belonging to the Luther Mission, for the union. On the allegation that the amounts so collected was misappropriated and thereby committed breach of trust, a private complaint was filed against the petitioners. Complainant, respondent in this petition, gave evidence as P.W.1. Other ten persons were also examined in court. Thereupon learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for offence under S.408 and 409 read with S.34 of the Penal Code. Petitioners challenge the order framing charge by preferring this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the evidence adduced by the complainant does not even prima facie bring out any offence against the petitioners. For the purpose of framing charge evidence let in by the complainant must be of such a nature that if it remains unrebutted it must warrant conviction of the accused. Such evidence it is argued, has not been let in by the complainant. On the basis of the evidence now before court, no judicial mind can come to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of any offence. In such a situation if the trial is allowed to proceed with, it is contended that it will result in abuse of process of court. The petitioners argument is that the court below acted without jurisdiction, illegally and improperly in framing the charges.

(3.) Sri. K. Jagadish Chandran Nair, learned counsel representing the respondent, complainant before the court below, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision petition. According to learned counsel, this court in Sarojini Amma v. Sarojini ( 1987 (2) KLT 520 ) took the view that an order framing charge is an interlocutory proceeding and as such no revision will lie in view of S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the code'). In case a different view is to be taken on the issue, it is submitted this case must be referred to a Division Bench and is not to be dealt with by me sitting single. I would have accepted this submission of counsel had not the Supreme Court spoken on the subject. The law declared by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. If the decision of this court in Sarojini Amma's case is in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this case need not go before a Bench. It has to be decided in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court. So I shall proceed to deal with the law declared by the Supreme Court.