Mani vs The State of Kerala

A. Hariprasad, J.—Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 436 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery. They were tried by the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The court below convicted them and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count on each of the accused with default sentences. Revision petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta as Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 2000. After considering the evidence in detail, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence. Feeling aggrieved, the accused have come up in revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

It is trite that what is to be considered in a revision is the legality, propriety and correctness of the sentence or order passed by the courts below. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners took me through the evidence, considered by the courts below to arrive at the finding of guilt of the revision petitioners. Courts below considered the testimony of PW1, the complainant. According to him, he owns about 25 cents of land at Muthanga and the revision petitioners/accused persons on some day in July, 1995 trespassed into the property and constructed a road through the said property. It is the allegation of PW1 that on account of the illegal act of the accused persons, he suffered a loss to a tune of Rs. 25,000/-. He filed Ext. P1 complaint before the Police. This witness deposed in court in terms with the averments in the complaint. In spite of cross-examination, his evidence could not be shattered.

Courts below relied on the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are the residents in the neighbourhood of the property of PW1. They supported the prosecution case. PW5 is the Taluk Surveyor. His testimony also supported the prosecution case. It is come out in evidence that there was a civil litigation between the parties, filed by the de facto complainant which ended in his favour. PW6 is the Investigating Officer and PW7 prepared Ext. P2 scene mahazar. Courts below considered the evidence properly and found that the accused persons have committed the offences of mischief and criminal trespass as alleged. I find no reason to hold that the convictions of the revision petitioners are either illegal or improper. Therefore, I confirm the same.

In the matter of sentences also, the courts below had shown utmost restraint. Only a flea bite sentence of fine is imposed on the revision petitioners. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as well.

In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.