Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases) Kozhikode. At the relevant point of time, the first accused was working as an Upper Division Clerk and the second accused, her husband, was employed in Kerala Soaps and Oil Mills Limited.

2. The case arose from a private complaint filed by P.W.1 before the Magistrate alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509, 294(a), 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Chevayur, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He registered the case and investigated the same. After investigation, the final report was filed alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509, 294(a), 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the revision petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to them. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to them. They understood the same and pleaded not guilty.

3. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 proved and marked. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied all the allegations leveled against them. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 294(a) and 506(1) I.P.C. and acquitted of those offences. After convicting the accused, the learned Magistrate sentenced the revision petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed on the first accused for the offence punishable under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine if any realized was directed to be paid as compensation to the defacto complainant. The substantive sentence imposed on the second accused was directed to run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners filed Crl.Appeal No.848 of 2004 before the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode. The case was made over to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners under Section 504 I.P.C. and acquitted them of that offence but confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. The sentence imposed on the second accused for that offence was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for imposing proper sentence on the revision petitioners under Section 509 read with Section 34 I.P.C. after hearing the counsel. The petitioners were directed to appear before the court below on 20-12-2005. Challenging those findings, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that there is absolutely no legal or factual basis for convicting the petitioners for the offences under Section 509 I.P.C. It is argued that the second accused, the husband of the first accused, was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 509 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge did not find what exactly is the illegality in the sentence imposed on him, but remanded the case after setting aside the sentence imposed on him only to impose the sentence on the second accused. It is argued that in the absence of any revision by the defacto complainant or a regu