Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY,THE3D DAY OF FEBRUARY201414TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 268 of 2010 ( ) -------------------------------- CRL.A.NO. 656/2006 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I, PALAKKAD DATED2811-2009 CC.NO. 321/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR DATED2311-2006 ------------------------ REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED1TO3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ZACHARIA,AGED52YEARS, S/O.P.M. KASIM SAHIB, P.M.K.VEEDU, JAINIMEDU, PALAKKAD.
2. ANTONY, AGED51YEARS,S/O.SEBASTIAN, DOOR NO.20/502, PUTHUPALLI STREET, NOORANI, PALAKKAD.
3. HAFI, AGED34YEARS, S/O.SIRAJ, P.M.K.VEEDU, JAINIMEDU, PALAKKAD. BY SRI.C.C.THOMAS,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA.M.T. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0302-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts B.P.RAY,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.268 OF2010- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2014 ORDER
The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.321/04 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur and the appellants in Crl.A.No.656/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge I, Palakkad. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506(1) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that on 21.2.2003 at about 9.15 a.m., when PW1 who is the Sales Tax Intelligence Officer, and party were conducting vehicle inspection, as per the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, on Chemmanampathy - Kambrathchalla public road in Mudalamada Panchayat, PW1 gave signal to the driver of the fully loaded lorry which came through the aforesaid road in a high speed and so PW1 and party chased after the aforesaid lorry in their jeep, and at that time, the accused persons 1 to 3 obstructed PW1 and party with the car by which the accused persons were travelling behind the aforesaid lorry and the said car stopped across the road preventing the jeep in which PW1 and party were travelling from proceeding ahead. Consequently, the Crl.R.P.No.268 OF2010::
2. :: aforesaid lorry could not be intercepted by PW1 and party. The accused persons did the aforesaid acts in furtherance of their common intention to use criminal force on PW1 and party in execution of their duty as public servants and thereby the accused persons committed the offences alleged.
3. The trial court found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1= years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each under Section 353 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 341 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months each. They are acquitted of the offences under Section 506 (1) of IPC. The fourth accused is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for all the offences.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred Crl.A. 656/2006 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I allowed the appeal in part and the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. They are sentenced to undergo rigorous Crl.R.P.No.268 OF2010::
3. :: imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days each under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction, modified sentence of imprisonment and fine passed by the courts below, the petitioners preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the revision petitioners with the car and the fled away lorry. There is no evidence to establish that the revision petitioners obstruted the public servants from discharging their official duties. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the offences punishable under Section 353 cannot be sustained. I do not want to Crl.R.P.No.268 OF2010::
4. :: re-appreciate the evidence on record as I am sitting in revision. Therefore, ends of justice would be best served by modifying the sentence imposed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the courts below vide judgments impugned in this Criminal Revision Petition are set aside and the fine amount is enhanced. The petitioners are directed to pay total amount of Rs.1,000/- each towards fine for offences both under Section 341 and 353 IPC within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In default, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The amount of fine, if any, remitted towards fine shall be given credit. Crl.R.P.is disposed of. B.P.RAY,JUDGE jes