Partly allowed

P. Surendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/2594/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Petition No. 2594 of 2006, the High Court set aside the mandatory simple imprisonment awarded to the accused for offences under Sections 427 and 447 of the IPC, holding that imprisonment under these sections is not mandatory, while affirming the conviction, sentence, and fine.

What did the court decide?

Mandatory simple imprisonment under Sections 427 and 447 of the IPC was set aside; conviction, sentence, and fine were affirmed; records remanded for execution of fine.

P. Surendran Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2594 OF 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 381/2000 DATED 29-06-2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 728/1997 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

P. SURENDRAN SIVAPURAM AMSOM, MALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.BINOY RAM SRI.V.K.SREENATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (MALOOR POLICE, STATION CRIME NO.54/96).

¶13

MS. M.N.MAYA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2594 OF 2006

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 7th day of February 2020

¶19

Revision petitioner is the accused in

¶20

C.C.No.728/97 of the Judicial First Class

¶21

Magistrate, Kuthuparambu.

¶22

By judgment dated 28.11.2000, the learned

¶23

Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused to

¶24

undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo

¶25

simple imprisonment for ten days for the offence

¶26

punishable under Section 447 IPC. Further, the

¶27

accused was sentenced to undergo simple

¶28

imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of

¶29

Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple

¶30

imprisonment for 20 days for the offence under

¶31

Section 427 of IPC. If the fine amount is

¶32

collected, the trial court has ordered to pay the

¶33

said amount as compensation to PW1. The aforesaid offences were ordered to run concurrent. Feeling

¶34

¶35

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2594 OF 2006

¶36

aggrieved, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal.No. 381/2000 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. By judgment dated 29.06.2006, the learned Sessions

¶37

Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the

¶38

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the judgment, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

When the revision petition has come up for

¶40

hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned counsel has no instruction from party. The submission is recorded.

¶41

This settled proposition of law that a

¶42

criminal revision petition cannot be dismissed for default. Hence, this Court has perused the entire materials on record including the lower court records.

¶43

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶44

The prosecution case is that on 28.12.1996

¶45

at 21 hours, the accused has criminally trespassed into the property owned and possessed by PW1 at

¶46

Palottu vayal in Maloor desom and has committed

¶47

¶48

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2594 OF 2006

¶49

mischief by destroying 280 rubber saplings and has caused loss of Rs.6,000/- to CW1 and thereby committed the above said offences.

¶50

During the trial PW1 to 7 were examined and

¶51

marked Exts.P1 to P3 and MO1 series. According to PW1, the property in R.S.44 of Sivapuram village belongs to his wife and he had planted about 280 rubber saplings in this property for rubber plantation. He further stated that on 28.12.1996, those rubber plants were destroyed and on 29.12.1996 at about 3PM, he came to know about the incident as narrated by PW4 and 5. He gave Ext.P1 complaint before the police. PW4 and 5 are the two occurrence witnesses in this case. They stated that they have seen the accused destroying the rubber saplings in the property of PW1. PW 6 is the yet another witness, who had seen the accused destroying the rubber plants. PW7 is the Sub

¶52

Inspector of police who recorded Ext.P1 complaint and registered Ext.P3 FIR. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused,

¶53

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2594 OF 2006

¶54

completed the investigation and submitted the final report before the court. On the strength of

¶55

reliable evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC.

¶56

As per Section 427 of IPC, “whoever commits mischief or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 447 of IPC provides that, whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

¶57

Going by Sections 427 and 447 of IPC,

¶58

imprisonment is not mandatory. Hence, the imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC stand set aside. In all other respects no other interference is warranted. The trial court and the

¶59

¶60

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2594 OF 2006

¶61

appellate court had considered the entire matter in detail and passed an order on merits. No interference is warranted.

¶62

In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The imprisonment awarded by the trial court has confirmed by the appellate court for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC stands set aside. In all other respects the revision stands dismissed. The trial court shall proceed with the execution of fine awarded in accordance with law. Send back the records to the trial court forthwith.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR

JUDGE

hmh

P. Surendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Surendran 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

Abdurahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. Radha Mohanan Vs M/S. Parasyavedi Advertising Company

Chandrabose Vs State of Kerala

V.Narakathara Vs Elsamma Sunny and Another

K.Raghunathan S/O Govindan Vs Musthafa S/O Hassankutty

Shanil, Vs State of Kerala