State of Kerala Vs. Antony

State of Kerala vs Antony

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Kerala Decided May 24, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/728490

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/728490
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
Decided On: May 24, 2004
Case Number: Crl. A. No. 525 of 1997
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]: [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appe...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 354 and 354(4); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279 and 304A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Kerala

Advocate Sujith Mathew Jose, Adv.

Respondent

Antony

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 354 and 354(4); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279 and 304A
Reported In: 2004CriLJ4729

Excerpt

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. - therefore, it comes within the exceptional clause in sub-section (4) of section 354, cr......of offences punishable for imprisonment for more than one year, specific reason thereof shall be stated by the court in the judgment. it was without stating any reason that only one day's imprisonment has been ordered in this case charged under sections 304a and 279 of the indian penal code. it would, in the normal course, invite imprisonment, if found guilty for a term of more than one year. it is further submitted that the fine imposed is also too law.3. a reading of sub-section (4) of section 354 of the code of criminal procedure discloses that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, the court need record its reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of the code.4. a reading of the judgment impugned shows that the accused pleaded guilty and therefore, the trial was a summary one and the imprisonment awarded is only until the rising of the court. therefore, it comes within the exceptional clause in sub-section (4) of section 354, cr. p.c. necessarily, the court had jurisdiction, without recording any reason, to pass an order of imprisonment until the rising of the court.5. the case was tried by a judicial magistrate of the first class, who could impose only rs. 5,000/- as fine. in such circumstances, imposition of a fine of rs. 2,000/-for the offence under section 304a and rs. 1,000/- under section 279, i.p.c. cannot be stated to be low to invite interference. moreover, the maximum fine envisaged under section 279, i.p.c. is only rs. 1,000/--hence, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

1. The respondent was the accused in C. C. No. 535/96 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kochi. He was tried for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively under those counts. The State has come up with this appeal for enhancement of the sentence.

2. It is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that if the Court had reason to sentence him for a term of less than three months, in cases of offences punishable for imprisonment for more than one year, specific reason thereof shall be stated by the Court in the judgment. It was without stating any reason that only one day's imprisonment has been ordered in this case charged under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It would, in the normal course, invite imprisonment, if found guilty for a term of more than one year. It is further submitted that the fine imposed is also too law.

3. A reading of Sub-section (4) of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure discloses that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, the Court need record its reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of the Code.

4. A reading of the judgment impugned shows that the accused pleaded guilty and therefore, the trial was a summary one and the imprisonment awarded is only until the rising of the Court. Therefore, it comes within the exceptional clause in Sub-section (4) of Section 354, Cr. P.C. Necessarily, the Court had jurisdiction, without recording any reason, to pass an order of imprisonment until the rising of the Court.

5. The case was tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, who could impose only Rs. 5,000/- as fine. In such circumstances, imposition of a fine of Rs. 2,000/-for the offence under Section 304A and Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279, I.P.C. cannot be stated to be low to invite interference. Moreover, the maximum fine envisaged under Section 279, I.P.C. is only Rs. 1,000/--

Hence, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2004 Same Parties State of Kerala vs Antony Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 354 and 3...

Criminal