Navas vs The Secretary on 23 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3948 of 2010()


1. NAVAS, PUNNAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :23/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      Crl. R.P. No.3948 of 2010
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
              Dated, this the 23rd day of December, 2010

                                ORDER

In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401

Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges the conviction entered and the

sentence passed by the courts below for an offence punishable under

Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with 27 of the

Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation Levy and Appeal) Rule 1996.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor. The case of the prosecution is that the

accused ,who had taken on lease shop room No.3 of the Sasthamcotta

Panchayath Shopping Complex, had defaulted in payment of rent for

the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 totalling to `29,097/- and the

attempt of the Panchayath to recover the amount by issuing distrust

warrant failed since the warrant was returned unexecuted. The

petitioner has thereby committed an offence punishable under

Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with 27 of the

Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation Levy and Appeal) Rule 1996.

3. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the judgments of the

Courts below, I see little scope for interference. The findings

recorded by the courts below are on the basis of appreciation of the

Crl. R.P. No. 3948 of 2010
2

oral and documentary evidence. Both the courts below have believed

the prosecution witnesses. Sitting in the rarefied revisional

jurisdiction, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the concurrent

findings. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the

findings recorded by the courts below.

4. The petitioner is, however, given further time of one month

from today to deposit the fine amount of `29,097/- (Rupees twenty

nine thousand and ninety seven only).

Subject to the above, this revision is dismissed.

Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj