Abdul Azeez Vs. State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 04, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1124374

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1124374
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice B.P.Ray
Decided On: Feb 04, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Azeez

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....this criminal revision petition.5. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.6. the incident happened in the year 1994. now, more than 20 years have elapsed after the incident. both the courts below have already found that there is no trespass into the reserve forest. section 9 of the wild life protection act deals with the prohibition for hunting and section 51 with the penal provision, which says that it is punishable for three years or fine or with both.7. the version given by the revision petitioners is that the wild pigs usually come and destroy the crops. when it was regular, the local crl.r.p.no.2446 of2005::3. :: police decided to kill the wild animal so as to protect their crops. all the revision petitioners are poor coolie workers belonging to a remote village. since the offence is punishable with fine, and sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory, the sentence could be converted into fine.8. considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, i set aside the substantive sentence and impose fine of rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. the fine imposed shall be paid by the end of february,2014. crl.r.p.is disposed of as above. b.p.ray,judge jes

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE4H DAY OF FEBRUARY201415TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2446 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO. 153/2001 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-I,PALAKKAD, C.C.NO.137/1997 OF THE JUDICIAL1T CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,PALAKKAD] ........... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS2TO7& 9 TO14 ACCUSED3TO8& 10 TO15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. ASSANAIR, KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O. KOOTTIL, PERINTHALMANNA.

2. KHALID, S/O. KAMMAPPA HAJI, PULLEKKADENTHODY, KOOTTIL P.O.

3. KAREEM, S/O. RAYANKUTTY, MANKADA, KOOTTIL P.O., PERINTHALMANNA.

4. KUTTAN, S/O. CHATHAN, NHARAKKATTIL, KOOTTIL P.O., PERINTHALMANNA.

5. KUNHAN, S/O. KARUPPAN, IDUVAMMAL, P.O. PONNAMKURUSSI, PERINTHALMANNA.

6. CHANDRAN, S/O. KUNHAN, KAKKOTH P.O., PERINTHALMANNA.

7. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. THARI, NHARAKKATTIL, MANKADA P.O.

8. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. THARI, PADUVIL VEEDU, MANKADA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA.

9. CHAMI, S/O. KORAN, IDUVAMMAL, P.O. PONNIANKURUSSI, MANKADA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. 10.K. SURESH, S/O. APPU, KARAYIL, IOOTTIL P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. 11.SUBAIR, S/O. KUNHU MUHAMMED, KUNNATHU VEEDU, KOOTTIL P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. Prv. CRL.R.P.NO.2446/2005:

12. MADHU, S/O. GOPI, NHARAKKATTIL, P.O. MANKAD, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY- THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0402-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. B.P.RAY,J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.2446 OF2005- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2014 ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgments of the Court of Session, Palakkad in Crl.A.153/2001, and in C.C.No.137/97 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. The accused persons 16 in number, were charged for offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The allegation against the accused persons is that on 16-10-1994, the accused persons trespassed into the Government forest in Olavakkode Range and engaged themselves in hunting by using guns and killed three wild pigs.

2. PWs 1 to 4 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P6 and MOs 1 and 2 were marked.

3. Accused No.2 did not appear for trial. The trial court found accused Nos.1 and 3 to 15 guilty for the offences punishable under the Wild Life Protection Act. All the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act. Accused No.16 in the case was not found guilty and acquitted by the trial court of all Crl.R.P.No.2446 OF2005::

2. :: charges. Accordingly, the trial court convicted A1 and A3 to 15 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months in the event of non payment of fine.

4. In appeal, accused No.1 is also acquitted. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. Being aggrieved by this, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 15 preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. The incident happened in the year 1994. Now, more than 20 years have elapsed after the incident. Both the courts below have already found that there is no trespass into the reserve forest. Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act deals with the prohibition for hunting and Section 51 with the penal provision, which says that it is punishable for three years or fine or with both.

7. The version given by the revision petitioners is that the wild pigs usually come and destroy the crops. When it was regular, the local Crl.R.P.No.2446 OF2005::

3. :: police decided to kill the wild animal so as to protect their crops. All the revision petitioners are poor coolie workers belonging to a remote village. Since the offence is punishable with fine, and sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory, the sentence could be converted into fine.

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the substantive sentence and impose fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine imposed shall be paid by the end of February,2014. Crl.R.P.is disposed of as above. B.P.RAY,JUDGE jes

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Abdul Azeez vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice B.P.Ray