This criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for theft was dismissed. The Court found no error, illegality, or impropriety in the lower courts' findings based on evidence and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Conviction and sentence confirmed; Revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2007 / 11TH ASHADHA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2436 of 2007()
-----------------------------CRA.300/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE CC.382/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE
REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER;
A.P.GEORGE @ THANKACHAN, S/O.PAPPACHAN, ARAYANIKKAL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA VILLAGE, KARIMBANAP.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
SRI.ICANS C.CHAMAKKALA
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TOWN) THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOZHIKODE.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-06-2007 THE COURT ON 02/07/2007, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. No. 2436 of 2007**
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 2**nd day of July 2007
ORDER
In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.c. 382 of 1993 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C.
This Revision which is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence by the courts below require interference under revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. GEORGE @ THANKACHAN
KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TOWN) THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
