Disposed

Prakashan v. State

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/811/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Sessions Court order in a criminal revision and appeal, converting the compensation payable to the de facto complainants into a fine of Rs. 32,000 with a default imprisonment sentence, after the accused agreed to pay additional amounts.

What did the court decide?

Fine of Rs. 32,000 payable to de facto complainants with default sentence of three months imprisonment if not paid by 1.12.2012.

Prakashan Vs State — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 811 of 2002

¶6

CRA.393/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR CC.360/1996 of J.M.F.C.,CHAVAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. PRAKASHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KANHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNNA DESOM,MANATHALA AMSOM

¶9

CHAVAKKAD TALUK.

¶10

2. SHARAJ,S/O.PRAKASHAN,KANHIRAPARAMBIL

¶11

HOUSE PUNNA DESOM,MANATHALA AMSOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶13

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRL. R.P.NO. 1225/2002, ON 05-11-2012, ALONG WITH CRRP. 1225/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

Crl. R.P. Nos. 811 & 1225 of 2002

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5^th day of November, 2012.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Criminal R.P. 811/2002 is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 360/1996 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. They were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted them and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each with a default sentence for 1½ months and if the fine amount is realised, Rs. 2,000/- each was directed to be given to PWs1 to 4 as compensation for the injuries suffered by them, under Section 357(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 447. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the Magistrate by filing Crl. A. No. 393/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction, set aside the punishment of imprisonment and confined the punishment to payment of compensation of Rs. 8000/- to be paid by each of the accused to PWs 1 to 4. The judgments of the courts below has been challenged by the accused in Criminal R.P. No. 811/2002.

¶23

Criminal R.P. 1225/2002 is filed by the de facto complainant challenging the judgment of the appellate court contending that without a substantive sentence, the Sessions Judge could not have confined the punishment to one of payment of compensation. The learned counsel for the

¶24

Crl. R.P. Nos. 811 & 1225 of 2002 -: 2 :-

¶25

petitioners in Criminal R.P. 811/2002 submitted that the petitioners have already deposited Rs. 16,000/- directed by the courts below and insofar as there is no punishment of imprisonment, they are not particular to prosecute the Criminal R.P. unless the de facto complainants want to prosecute their Criminal R.P..

¶26

I have considered the matter. I am of opinion that the punishment can be suitably modified to satisfy both. I put it to the petitioners in Criminal R.P. 811/2002 as to whether they are prepared to pay Rs.8000/- each more to the de facto complainants. They have agreed to do the same. In the above circumstances, the judgment of the Sessions Court is modified as follows:

¶27

The punishment is converted as one for payment of fine of Rs. 32,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for three months. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the de facto complainants, who are the petitioners in Criminal R.P. 1225/2002. Needless to say, the petitioners in Criminal R.P. 811/2002 shall be given due credit for the amounts, if any, deposited by them pursuant to the impugned judgment. If the petitioners in Criminal R.P. 811/2002 do not pay the fine amount by 1.12.2012, the Magistrate shall execute the default sentence.

¶28

The Criminal R.Ps. are disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[True copy]

P.S to Judge.

Crl. R.P. Nos. 811 & 1225 of 2002

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶36

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl. R.P. Nos. 811 & 1225 of 2002

¶37

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

5^th day of November, 2012.

Prakashan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashan v. State

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

G.Sukumaran Nair, Nair Service Society Vs M.Sivasankar

C.P Susan Prameela Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

S. Raveendran Vs Sri. M. Sivasankar, IAS

K. Radhamany Amma Vs Pinku Biswal

Kuttiraja Vs State of Kerala

Maya Vijayan Vs State of Kerala