Partly allowed

Chirukandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/16/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the revision petition stands allowed in part, reducing the sentence of revision petitioners convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs 7500 each, considering their ages.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.7,500/- each.

Chirukandan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 16 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl.A 30/2012 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - II, KASARAGOD CC 921/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶8

CHIRUKANDAN

¶9

S/O.PAKKEERAN, KOOVATHOTTY HOUSE, CHEMNAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

SADASIVAN V.K.

¶11

S/O.KRISHNAN, NADACKAL HOUSE, MELPARAMBA,

¶12

KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU MARTIN SMT.P.R.REENA SRI.M.M.SALIM SRI.D.M.NOWFAL

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶20

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.16 of 2014

¶22

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21^st day of October 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced

¶25

under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for

¶26

short 'the Act') concurrently by the courts below.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

No material has been brought to the notice of this

¶29

court to indicate that the concurrent finding of conviction or appreciation of evidence by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Section 7 of the

¶30

Crl.R.P.16/2014

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

Act, does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶33

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has pleaded for leniency. No previous conviction has been proved against the revision petitioners. The first and the third revision petitioners are aged 86 years and 80 years respectively at present. The second revision petitioner is presently aged 47 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the revision petitioners, I am inclined to modify and reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for one month each, under Section 7 of the Act, to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly, I order so.

¶34

Crl.R.P.16/2014

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶37

part as above.

¶38

The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial

¶39

court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

dl/24.10.2016

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

PA to Judge

Chirukandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chirukandan 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

Sreelal Vs the State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Nair and Others Vs State of Kerala

Kannan and Another Vs State of Kerala

B.K. Damodaran Vs State of Kerala

Saji, S/O.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala