1. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed in CMP.No.147/2012 in CC.No.140/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, dismissing the above petition filed by the Revision Petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge from prosecution. The Revision Petitioner is the sole accused in CC.No.140/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha as well as Crime No.14/2009 in CCPS/Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kerala, from which the above Calender Case had been arisen.

2. Originally he was the accused in Crime No.1499/2010 of Muvattupuzha Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act (for short 'IT Act') and the Crime No.399/2009 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 66 of the IT Act and Section 420, 379 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. These two crimes were registered alleging the same act alleged to have been committed by the accused. But, by the order No.D5/76776/2009 issued by the Director General of Police, the above two cases were transferred to Cyber Police Station, SCRB, Thiruvananthapuram. Now, after investigation, a final report has been filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Cyber Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha against the Revision Petitioner/accused alleging offence punishable under Section 469 of the IPC alone, after deleting the offence punishable under Section 66 of the IT Act and also all other offences alleged against the Revision Petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under the India Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

On 3.7.2009, the Revision Petitioner/the accused who is the Assistant Manager of the Zonal Office of the State Bank of Travancore (SBT, Panampilly Nagar), Ernakulam had used the E-mail address of the Muvattupuzha branch of the State Bank of Travancore and sent a message to CW6, who is the Assistant General Manager and also the Head of the Vigilance Department of SBT, Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram, stating as follows:

“Your bank is doing unduly favour to M/s. K C Wood Industries Ltd - Wood manufactures of Muvattupuzha. The project proposal submitted by us is rejected citing various reasons by your regional manager. At the same time the limit enjoyed by K C Wood Industries has enhanced from 25 Lacs to 50 Lacs. We are doing same business and the K C Wood Industries has not doing business for a limit of 50 Lacs. So it's unduly personal favour done by your regional manager. Please enquire about such proposals sanctioned and rejected from Muvattupuzha.”

It is alleged that the Revision Petitioner had forged and sent an electronic record in the name of an enterprenour by name V.K.Ibrahim & Sons, which was not in existence on 3.7.2009, from the internet caffe owned by the Cw4 at Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam. Thus, the Revision Petitioner/accused had thereby caused a loss of reputation to the Bank and Cw1 by sending the above message using the forged E-mail address and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 469 of IPC.

4. The Revision Petitioner has filed No.147/2012, in the above case seeking discharge from prosecution mainly on the ground that Cyber Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram has no authority or power to file a final report to charge sheet him for the offence punishable under the IPC alone, when there is no police charge under the Information Technology Act in the final report. Similarly, the allegations in the charge even if admitted at its entirety, do not disclose the offence alleged against him. The learned Magistrate after hearing both parties dismissed the petition by the impugned order. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the Revision Petitioner S