Dismissed

The Special Grade Secretary v. Leons David

Kerala HC27 Jun 2011CRL.A/533/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal appeal by the Grama Panchayat against an acquittal. The bench held that the trial court correctly found no evidence of impracticable distraint, noting no attempt was made to attach articles from the accused's residence. Dismissal was grounded on lack of evidence and absence of perversity.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused confirmed.

The Special Grade Secretary Vs Leons David — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

CRL.A.No. 533 of 2005()

¶6

----------------------ST.2193/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI

¶7

APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT.

¶8

¶9

THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE.

¶12

¶13

LEONS DAVID, CHUNGATHU HOUSE, S/O.DEVASSEY, P.O.PATTAMBI.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.HEMA, J.

¶18

----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No. 533 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 27^th day of 2011 .

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal arises from an order of acquittal.

¶21

Appellant is the Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary. A complaint was filed by the appellant against first respondent alleging offence under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Act read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1996. Evidence was adduced by the prosecution and, after consideration of the evidence in detail, the trial court found the accused to be not guilty and acquitted him of all the offences alleged.

¶22

The impugned order was passed as early as on 31.8.2004, about 7 years back. The case was instituted in the year 2001, about 10 years back. Petition for leave was filed in the year 2005 and leave was granted as early as on 6.1.2005. Thereafter, the appeal came up for admission on 22.3.2005, more than 6 years back and it is coming up again for hearing on admission today.

¶23

The trial court considered the various aspects and rival

¶24

¶25

[Crl. Appeal 533/2005]

¶26

contentions in detail in paragraphs 6 to 12. The evidence of PW1 shows that no attempt was made for attachment of any article from the house of the accused. Only if the distraint becomes impracticable that accused is liable to be prosecuted. But the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment of any article from the house of the accused.

¶27

Only if the distraint becomes impracticable the accused is liable to be prosecuted under Section 210. So, the complainant has failed to prove that the distraint has become impracticable. Since the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment from the residence of the accused it cannot be said that the distraint becomes impracticable.

¶28

In paragraph 11 of the impugned order, the trial court observed as follows:

¶29

“Since the evidence shows that no attempt was made by PWs.1 and 2 for the attachment going to the residence of the accused it is to be accepted that movables were there in the house in which the accused was residing. But the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment of any article from the house of the accused. Only if the distraint becomes impracticable the accused is liable to be prosecuted. So the complainant has to prove

¶30

¶31

[Crl. Appeal 533/2005]

¶32

that the distraint has become impracticable. Since the evidence shows that no attempt was made for attachment from the residence of the accused it cannot be accepted that the distraint became impracticable.”

¶33

I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the above findings of the trial court. The findings are only reasonable and consistent with the evidence. Hence, there is no ground to admit this appeal.

¶34

Appeal is dismissed.

¶35

SD/K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶36

Krs.

The Special Grade Secretary v. Leons David

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Grade Secretary v. Leons David

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasi @ Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs S.Prakashan

Binu P.P. Vs v.M.Girija & Another

A.K.Babu Vs M/S.Palamattom Chitties (P) Ltd.

Mahesh.M.K. Vs P.v.a.Salam

M/S.Manappuram General Finance Ltd. Vs Kunju Muhammed