Dismissed

Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/256/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in criminal revision, examined whether accused persons illegally removed sand from a river bank without a license, constituting theft under Section 379 IPC. The court confirmed that the sand belonged to the Panchayath, the removal was dishonest, and the conviction and fine were upheld.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 256 of 2003 ( )

¶6

------------------------------CRA.473/2000 of IIIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, THRISSUR CC.172/1999 of J.M.F.C.,WADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SREEDHARAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, CHETTILAGAD DESOM, EYYAN VILLAGE.

¶9

2. ABDUL KABEER, S/O. MUTHU, MARAMPURATHU HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY DESOM KARIYANNUR VILLAGE

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

das

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

==================

¶18

Crl.R.P. No. 256 of 2003

¶19

========================= Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners are the accused who suffered concurrent verdict of conviction for the offence under Sec.379 r/w 34 of IPC. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/each and in default of the same, to undergo S.I for six months.

¶22

PW5, the Sub Inspector of police along with PW3 and others was on night patrol duty on 21.02.1999 at Desamangalam-Varavoor-Kodappara side, at early morning at 2.55 hours. They saw the lorry coming from Bharathapuzha Kadavu. Having reasonable belief that the said lorry was transporting sand, it was intercepted and examined. Petitioners were seen in the lorry; one of them was driving the same. Since the petitioners could not account for possession of the sand and considering the

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.256/2003

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

proximity of place namely that it was very near to Kadavu mentioned above, PW5 had the reason to believe that the sand was removed from Bharathapuzha. The petitioners had no case as to the place from where the sand was collected or that it was legally collected from any other place. The evidence on record is that it was seen at odd hours, at about 2.55 AM. The lorry was found near Bharathapuzha Kadavu. The evidence on that point given by PW5 which was supported by PW3, was accepted by the courts below. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, was prepared contemporaneously. It reached the court on the next day itself. These factors persuaded the court below to hold that the sand was illegally removed from Bharathapuzha.

¶26

The other question is whether the offence under Sec.379 would be attracted. There is a statutory vesting of river and river bank etc. with the Grama Panchayath as per Sec.218 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. There is no case that the petitioners had obtained any licence or permit from the Panchayath for removal of

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.256/2003

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

sand. The fact that no written complaint was received from the Panchayath is not a reason to say that the sand was not removed. PW6, the President of the Panchayath has stated that no permission or licence was granted to the petitioners to remove the sand.

¶30

The only other question is whether it was removed dishonestly or not. When the sand belonged to the Panchayath was removed, there is a revenue loss to the Panchayath. There is a corresponding gain to the person/persons who removed it. If so, the act of removal of sand has to be termed as dishonest in view of Sec.24 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the finding of guilt entered by the courts below is unassailable.

¶31

The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners only to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-. Since no jail sentence was awarded by the court below, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate. Since, only a fine of Rs.2,500/- was awarded, I find no reason to interfere with the sentencing

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.256/2003

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

discretion exercised by the courts below.

¶35

In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed against petitioners.

¶36

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

das

¶38

// True copy //

¶39

PA to Judge

Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

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

C.M.Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Suo Moto Vs M.Dhanudas

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat Vs T.a.Ismail

Suresh Vs Sahadevan

Soman Vs State of Kerala