Allowed

Unnikrishnan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/495/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the Electricity Act. The court upheld the conviction under the former but set aside the conviction under the Electricity Act due to a lack of court power to take cognizance of an offence committed prior to a 2007 statutory amendment. Certain sentences were reduced.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 140 of the Electricity Act set aside; sentence under P.D.P.P. Act reduced for one petitioner; others confirmed.

Unnikrishnan Nair and Others Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 495 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 48/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD CC 190/2001 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, MANAYANKATH VEEDU, VELLAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶9

RAVIKUMAR, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR MANAYANKATH VEEDU,VELLAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶10

KRISHNADASAN,S/O.UNNKRISHNAN NAIR MANAYANKATH VEEDU,VELLAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C. K. PRASAD

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.495 of 2010

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of October 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The accused in C.C.No.190 of 2001 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattambi filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 3(2)(a) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'the P.D.P.P. Act') and Section 40 of the Electricity Act.

¶22

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision

Crl.R.P.495/2010

: 2 :

petitioners.

The first revision petitioner is reported no more.

¶27

However, revision petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and legal heirs of the deceased first revision petitioner.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Section 3(2)(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners. No material is available before the court to indicate that the concurrent finding of conviction under Section 3(2)(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act or appreciation of evidence by the courts

¶30

below was perverse or incorrect. In the said

¶31

Crl.R.P.495/2010

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the offence under

¶34

Section 3(2)(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued that since the incident in this case was on 30.4.2001, no conviction under Section 140 of the Electricity Act (wrongly mentioned as Section 40 instead of Section 140 of the Electricity Act by the courts below) can be sustained, in view of the provisions of Section 151 of the Electricity Act. Section 151 of the Electricity Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the said Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate

¶36

Crl.R.P.495/2010

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or

¶39

licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose.

¶40

However, with effect from 15.6.2007, the first proviso was introduced to Section 151 of the Electricity Act, which provides that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Electricity Act upon a report of a Police Officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This would show that the court was given power to take cognizance upon a report filed by the Police officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the first time with effect from 15.6.2007. Since the offence in this case was committed prior to the

¶41

Crl.R.P.495/2010

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

introduction of the first proviso to the statute, the court had no power to take cognizance of the offence in the absence of any complaint as provided under Section 151 of the Electricity Act. For the said reason, the taking of cognizance, conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 140 of the Electricity Act cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶44

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has pleaded for leniency. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that since the second revision petitioner is a Government servant working as a School teacher, the sentence of fine exceeding Rs.2,000/- would adversely affect his career. No previsou conviction has been proved

¶45

Crl.R.P.495/2010

¶46

: 6 :

¶47

against the revision petitioners. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, I am inclined to take a lenient view and modify and reduce the sentence awarded against the second revision petitioner by the courts below under Section 3(2) (a) of the P.D.P.P. Act to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for 15 days, to secure the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.

¶48

The sentence awarded by the courts below against revision petitioner Nos.1 and 3 under Section 3(2)(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act stands confirmed. The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 140 of the Electricity Act (wrongly mentioned as Section 40 by

¶49

Crl.R.P.495/2010

¶50

: 7 :

¶51

the courts below), stand set aside.

¶52

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶53

part as above.

¶54

The third revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶55

The second revision petitioner is granted time till

¶56

1.12.2016 to pay the fine.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

JUDGE

dl/21.10.2016

true copy

Pa to Judge

Unnikrishnan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan Nair and Others 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

Chenthamara Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Kannan and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sreelal Vs the State of Kerala

B.K. Damodaran Vs State of Kerala