P.V.George vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 31, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1348675

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/1348675
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Oct 31, 2023
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/279/2011

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.V.George

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....court), confirming the judgment in c.c.no.269/2003 of the court of the judicial first class magistrate-i, mananthavady (trial court), holding the revision petitioner guilty and convicting him for the offence under section 113 of the explosive rules, 1983 and section 5 of the explosive substance act,1884, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.2. the prosecution case is that: on 31.12.1998, the accused was unauthorisedly keeping dangerous explosive substances in his possession without any -:3:- valid licence. thus, he committed the offences.3. the accused pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read over to him.4. in the trial, the prosecution examined pws 1to 13 and marked exts p1 to p13 in evidence. the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence in theexamination under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure,1973(in short, 'code').5. the trial court, after appreciating the materials placed on record, convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.6. aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner filed criminal appeal no.30/2008 before the appellate court.7. the appellate court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment, -:4:- dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.8. it is assailing the concurrent findings in the judgments passed by the courts below; the revision petition is filed.9. heard; sri. george mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and smt.seetha s., the learned senior public prosecutor appearing for the respondent - state.10. when the revision petition came up for consideration on 11.10.2023, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that therevision.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 279 OF 2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2010 IN CRA NO.30/2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2008 IN CC NO.269/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MANANTHAVADY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: P.V.GEORGE, S/O. VAREETH, AGED 49 YEARS, PALISSERY HOUSE, PULINHAL, VELLAMUNDA AMSOM. BY ADV SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA SHO, VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2023

ORDER

The revision petition is filed challenging the

judgment in Crl.A. No.30/2008 of the Court of the

Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta

(Appellate Court), confirming the judgment in C.C.No.269/2003 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mananthavady (Trial Court), holding the revision petitioner guilty and convicting him for the offence under Section 113 of The Explosive Rules, 1983 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act,1884, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution case is that: on 31.12.1998, the accused was unauthorisedly keeping dangerous explosive substances in his possession without any -:3:- valid licence. Thus, he committed the offences.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read over to him.

4. In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1

to 13 and marked Exts P1 to P13 in evidence.                              The
accused         denied          the   incriminating         circumstances
appearing             against    him     in     the    evidence      in   the

examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(in short, 'Code').

5. The Trial Court, after appreciating the materials placed on record, convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.30/2008 before the Appellate Court.

7. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment, -:4:- dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

8. It is assailing the concurrent findings in the judgments passed by the courts below; the revision petition is filed.

9. Heard; Sri. George Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

10. When the revision petition came up for consideration on 11.10.2023, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the

revision petitioner is dead. Consequently, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to enquire, through the Jurisdictional Police, as to whether the revision petitioner is no more.

11. Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor -:5:-

submitted that the whereabouts of the revision petitioner could not be traced. However, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner handed over a letter that was addressed to the revision petitioner wherein the postal authority has endorsed that ‘the revision petitioner is no more’. Thus, it is only to be assumed that the revision petitioner is no more.

12. In Pazhani v. State of Kerala [2017(1) KLT

341(FB)], a Full Bench of this Court has categorically declared the law that, pending an appeal/revision petition, if the appellant/revision petitioner/accused dies and there is a sentence of fine imposed against him, then necessarily the revision petition/appeal is to be dismissed as abated, in view of Section 394 of the Code.

In the light of the above provision and the categoric declaration of law, I am of the definite view that the revision petition is only to be dismissed as -:6:- abated. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as abated. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/31.10.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties P.V.George vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias