Akhil vs State of Kerala

AKHIL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 23, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1440983

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/1440983
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Mar 23, 2022
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/39/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

AKHIL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....reduced to rs.1000/-.3. according to the learned counsel, the contrabandseized was not sent for chemical examination and therefore, the revision petitioner on facing trial in the case could have obtained an order of acquittal for an offence under section 27 (b) ndps act. according to him chemical examination of the contraband seized plays a major role in convicting the revision petitioner foran offence under section 27 (b) ndps act. it is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not aware at the relevant time of the consequences of tendering a plea of guilt. according to him, the petitioner’s name has been incorporated in the ranklist of sailor in indian navy and the conviction and sentence stands imposed on him in the case on hand would cast a stigma on while opting for that job. in the above context that the order of conviction and sentence imposed is sought to be set aside in the revision petition.4. it is found from the impugned judgment that on receipt of summons in the case the revision petitioner opted to appear before the court through a counsel. when charge was read over, the revision petitioner pleaded guilty of the offence charged against him. the court below accepted the plea and recorded it. based on the plea, the revision petitioner was foundguilty and convicted and sentenced as stated above. the appellate court confirmed the finding of guilt and order of conviction. the sentence of fine was reduced to rs.1000/-. the fine amount was remitted by the revision petitioner on 21.12.2019 as evidenced from receipt no.801776, book no.8018.5. the only ground raised in the revision while seekingto set aside the concurrent findings of guilt and orders of conviction and sentence was to get rid of the stigma of conviction in view of incorporation of his name in the ranklist for sailor in indian navy. the revision petitioner has no case that the plea of guilt was tendered by his counsel without his knowledge or consent. the legality of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.REV.PET NO. 39 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2020 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.60/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2019 IN CC NO.1047/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: AKHIL, S/O.NAGENDRAN, ARUN NIVAS, T.C.46/562, POONTHURA DESOM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEENA C THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2022

This revision is filed challenging judgment passed by Additional District and Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the appellate court’) on 23.07.2020 in Crl.A.No.60/2020 and judgment passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the trial court’) on 21.12.2019 in CC No.1047/2018.

2. Petitioner stands charged for an offence punishable under Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). He entered appearance through counsel. Copies were served on him. Particulars of offences were read over and explained to the counsel. He pleaded guilty. Accepting the plea of guilt and after being convinced of the genuineness and voluntariness in tendering it the trial court recorded it and convicted and

sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The court has also directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days in case of default in payment of fine. Judgment above was assailed before the appellate court in Crl.A.No.60/2020. The said court has confirmed the finding of guilt and the conviction. The fine imposed was reduced to Rs.1000/-.

3. According to the learned counsel, the contraband

seized was not sent for chemical examination and therefore, the revision petitioner on facing trial in the case could have obtained an order of acquittal for an offence under Section 27 (b) NDPS Act. According to him chemical examination of the contraband seized plays a major role in convicting the revision petitioner for

an offence under Section 27 (b) NDPS Act. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not aware at the relevant time of the consequences of tendering a plea of guilt. According to him, the petitioner’s name has been incorporated in the ranklist of Sailor in Indian Navy and the conviction and sentence stands imposed on him in the case on hand would cast a stigma on while opting for that job. In the above context that the order of conviction and sentence imposed is sought to be set aside in the revision petition.

4. It is found from the impugned judgment that on receipt of summons in the case the revision petitioner opted to appear before the court through a counsel. When charge was read over, the revision petitioner pleaded guilty of the offence charged against him. The court below accepted the plea and recorded it. Based on the plea, the revision petitioner was found

guilty and convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appellate court confirmed the finding of guilt and order of conviction. The sentence of fine was reduced to Rs.1000/-. The fine amount was remitted by the revision petitioner on 21.12.2019 as evidenced from receipt No.801776, book No.8018.

5. The only ground raised in the revision while seeking

to set aside the concurrent findings of guilt and orders of conviction and sentence was to get rid of the stigma of conviction in view of incorporation of his name in the ranklist for Sailor in Indian Navy. The revision petitioner has no case that the plea of guilt was tendered by his counsel without his knowledge or consent. The legality of the concurrent findings and the orders of conviction and sentence are not challenged.

Finding of guilt having been entered into and orders of conviction and sentence having been imposed on him following tendering of a plea of guilt, those are not liable to be set aside. Revision fails and is dismissed at the outset. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties AKHIL vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph