High Court Kerala High Court

Binu vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Binu vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1579 of 2007()


1. BINU, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :19/12/2008

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ------------------------------------------
                     CRL.R.P. NO. 1579 OF 2008
                    ------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008


                                O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.367 of 2001 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal. Petitioner

was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one

year and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under section 380 of

Indian Penal Code. Petitioner challenged the conviction before

Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 100 of 2004.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence

confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

It is challenged in the revision.

2. Though revision was filed through Adv. Mr.

Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the counsel subsequently

relinquished the vakalath. On going through the judgments of

the Courts below, it is seen that the period of sentence is already

over. Therefore Registry was directed to verify whether

petitioner is undergoing sentence or was released. It is reported

that revision petitioner was released from prison on 31.12.2007

in this case and he is undergoing the sentence in C.C.234 of

CRRP 1579/2007 2

2001on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal.

3. On going through the judgments of Courts below, I

find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence

for the offence under section 380 of Indian Penal Code as

conviction was based on the evidence on record which was

properly appreciated by the Courts below in the proper

perspective.

Revision petition is dismissed.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

Okb/-