In this criminal revision petition, the Honorable Court confirmed the conviction under Section 353 of the I.P.C. for obstructing an Excise Official. The Court substituted the original sentence with a fine of ₹5,000 and one month simple imprisonment in default.
Conviction confirmed; sentenced to a fine of ₹5,000 with one month simple imprisonment in default.
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 M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/19TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1293 of 2012 ()
CRL. APPEAL NO.639/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - I, MAVELIKKARA.
CC 478/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I, MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED.:
BIJU AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.VASU, BIJU BHAVANAM, PALLICKAL NADUVILE MURI BHARANICKAVU.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
Crl.R.P. No.1293 OF 2012
----------------------------------------------Dated 10th March, 2014
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.478 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikkara and the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara. Both the courts below concurrently found that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.R.P.No.1293/12
2
two months. He was acquitted from the charge under Section 506(ii) of the I.P.C.
Additional Sessions Court - I, Mavelikkara, the conviction of the second accused under Section 353 of the I.P.C. was confirmed and the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for 30 days and the sentence of fine was confirmed. Against that judgment, the appellant/second accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.
raised the same contentions raised before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below convicted the accused under Section 353 of the I.P.C. on properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 353 of the I.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No.1293/12
3
other case and therefore, some leniency may be shown in awarding the sentence.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the second accused in C.C.No.478 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikkara under Section 353 of the I.P.C. is confirmed. The second accused is sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/- under Section 353 of the I.P.C., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Three months time is granted to the second accused to remit the fine amount before the trial court.
Sd/-
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
tgs
(true copy)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 353 of the I.P.C. should be interfered with.
Whether the sentence of fine under Section 353 of the I.P.C. is adequate in the circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Biju
State of Kerala
M.L.Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
