Partly allowed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/1028/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court confirmed the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 353 and 448 of the IPC. Substituting the prior jail sentences, the court imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000 for the offence under Section 353 and Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 448, with default imprisonment specified.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence reduced to fine of Rs. 3,000 under Section 353 IPC and Rs. 1,000 under Section 448 IPC, with default imprisonment.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1028 of 2006 ( )

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.512/2003 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

CC 143/2002 of J.M.F.C.,CHITTUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SURESH, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH,

¶10

AGED 24 YEARS, SUBRAMANIYA NIVAS, PAZHAYANGADI KOLLENGODE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶14

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS J.AMBOOKEN.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.1028 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------Dated 20^th March, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.143/02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur, wherein he stood accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is as follows : On 5.2.2002 at 11 a.m., the accused committed criminal trespass into the Conference Hall of Kollengode Grama Panchayat, where a meeting in connection with SCRY programme was held, and forcefully took away the minutes of the meeting from PW1, who being a public servant preparing the minutes in execution of his official duty. The accused tore the minutes into pieces by using criminal force in order to deter PW1 from discharging his duty as a public servant and thus the accused committed the aforesaid offences.

¶22

The trial court found the accused guilty of the offences, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1028/06

¶24

¶25

imprisonment for one year under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 448 of the I.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶26

In Crl. Appeal No.512 of 2003 filed before the II Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, the conviction under Sections 353 and 448 of the IPC was confirmed and the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month each. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same arguments advanced before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below concurrently found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 448 of the IPC, on properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused under Sections 353 and 448 of

Crl.R.P.No.1028/06

the IPC.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is a first offender and since the occurrence took place 12 years ago, some leniency may be shown in awarding the sentence.

¶33

For the offences under Sections 353 and 448 of the IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of 3,000/- under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and to pay a fine of 1,000/- under Section 448 of the I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in C.C.No.143/02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur under Sections 353 and 448 of the I.P.C. is confirmed. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 3,000/- under Section 353 of the I.P.C., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. The accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000/under Section 448 of the I.P.C. , in default to undergo simple

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1028/06

¶36

¶37

imprisonment for one week. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner to remit the fine amount before the trial court.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶40

tgs

¶41

(true copy)

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Sreedharan Vs Kunhirman Nair (Died),, Padmavathy and Others

Sam @ Samkutty Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Sivasankaran Nair Vs K.S.Harikumar

Sivasankaran Nair Vs M.R.Mohankumar