Allowed

Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/76/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision, held that the concurrent conviction by courts below was not perverse. However, modifying the sentence, the court awarded imprisonment for the period of detention already undergone, along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and simple imprisonment in default.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment for the period of detention undergone; fine of Rs.1 lakh; simple imprisonment for one month in default.

Santhosh 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

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 76 of 2012 ()

¶6

Crl.A 192/2009 of ADDL.SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE SC 347/2006 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

SANTHOSH

¶9

S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KUNNARA HOUSE, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL POST, VIA CHENGALA KASARAGOD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

(SHO KASARAGOD) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI, RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.76 of 2012

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25^th day of October 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act concurrently by the courts

¶22

below.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 24.2.2004 at

¶25

2.30 p.m., the revision petitioner was found transporting 22

¶26

packets of Karnataka made arrack, each packet having a capacity of 100 m.l. each, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶27

Crl.R.P.76/2012

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

Before the trial court, PW1 and PW2 were

¶30

examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1 to MOIII. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶31

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶32

Crl.R.P.76/2012

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

The quantity involved in this case is 2.25 litres. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had already undergone detention from 24.2.2004 to 11.3.2004 in connection with this case as per the judgment of the trial court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to modify and reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to imprisonment to the period of detention already undergone by the revision petitioner and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month, to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly, I order so.

¶35

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

part as above.

Crl.R.P.76/2012

: 4 :

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial

¶40

court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

dl/.26.10.2016

¶44

// True Copy //

¶45

PA to Judge

Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh 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

Sobhana Vs State of Kerala and Another

Parameswaran Vs State of Kerala

Kandambeth Chandran Vs Ibrahim @ Ibrahimkutty V.V.

Baby @Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Ambu T. Vs Kerala State

N.Rajan Vs State of Kerala