IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 4239 of 2006(E)
1. HANEEFA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
For Respondent :SRI.S.U.NAZAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :30/11/2006
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------
CRL.R.P.NO. 4239 OF 2006
---------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November,2006
O R D E R
The petitioners were found guilty for the offences
under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 354 of the Indian
Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for various terms by the trial court.
On appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction
and sentence.
2. Crl.M.Appl.No.11897 of 2006 was filed by the
revision petitioners as well as Pws.1 and 2 seeking
leave to compound the offence and that application was
allowed.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is
allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioners are set aside and the petitioners are
acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
CRL.M.A.NO.11486 OF 2006
:: 2 ::
CRL.M.A.NO.11486 OF 2006
:: 3 ::
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
———————————
CRL.M.APPL.NO. 11898 OF 2006
———————————
Dated this the 30th day of November,2006
O R D E R
This is an application to implead respondents 2
and 3 herein as additional respondents 2 and 3 in
the Criminal Revision Petition, they being the
defacto complainant and another person who is
injured. The application is allowed. Notice need
not be issued to respondents 2 and 3 since they
have already appeared and filed a petition for
compounding.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
CRL.M.A.NO.11486 OF 2006
:: 4 ::
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
———————————
CRL.M.APPL.NO. 11897 OF 2006
———————————
Dated this the 30th day of November,2006
O R D E R
This is an application filed under Section 320
(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking
leave to compound the offence. The petitioners
were found guilty for the offences under Sections
341, 323, 447 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
The application is signed by PWs.1 and 2, who are
the injured. The second respondent is the defacto
complainant. It is stated in the application that
the matter is settled between the parties and that
respondents 2 and 3 have no further grievance in
the case. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, leave is granted to compound the offence.
The application is allowed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
CRL.M.A.NO.11486 OF 2006
:: 5 ::
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
———————————
CRL.M.APPL.NO. 11486 OF 2006
———————————
Dated this the 30th day of November,2006
O R D E R
This is an application for condonation of the
delay of eight days in filing the Revision. The
judgment impugned in this Revision is dated
27.5.2006. The conviction and sentence imposed on
the revision petitioners/accused were confirmed in
the appeal. Therefore, they were entitled to get a
free copy of the judgment of the Appellate Court
under Section 363(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Free copy of the judgment was issued on
7.7.2006. In view of the decision in Ouso and
others v. Cheekka and another (Unnumbered Crl.R.P.
Of 2006 against Crl.A.No.279 of 2005), there must
be endorsement on the free copy as to when copy was
ready, the date notified to receive the copy and
CRL.M.A.NO.11486 OF 2006
:: 6 ::
the date notified for delivery. Since the relevant
endorsements are not there on the copy issued to
the petitioners, it is not possible to compute the
period of limitation and to find out the last date
for filing the Revision. Hence, I hold that there
is no delay in filing the Revision. The
application is unnecessary and it is closed.
Registry shall number the Revision
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
————————
————————
CRL.M.C.NO. OF
O R D E R
September, 2006
————————