MOHANAN, TC 16/838, MEMANA KATTAKKALIL versus PARAMANADAN, TC 16/835

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

MOHANAN, TC 16/838, MEMANA KATTAKKALIL v. PARAMANADAN, TC 16/835 - Crl Rev Pet No. 1323 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 6203 (26 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 1323 of 2007()

1. MOHANAN, TC 16/838, MEMANA KATTAKKALIL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. PARAMANADAN, TC 16/835,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :26/03/2007

O R D E R

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

CRL.R.P.No.1323 of 2007

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2007

ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused, who stands convicted for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four days. It is also ordered that the fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution case is that on 4.7.1998, at about 11.30 a.m. while PW1 was conducting sale of lottery tickets in his mobile unit near Vazhuthakadu junction, the accused abused him and attempted to attack him. He was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 394(b) and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the testimony of PWs' 1 to 3. The proceedings were initiated on a private complaint. The accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 506(1) of IPC and he was acquitted for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.  CRRP1323/07 Page numbers

3. On a consideration of the judgments of the courts below, which are concurrent, I find no reasons to interfere as the findings are supported by proper reasons. The evidence of PW1, the complainant was convincing. It appears to be that the matter is connected with the allegation that the complainant trespassed into the purampoke land and the accused being one among the neighbouring property owners had complained about the matter and the Taluk Surveryor had inspected the property and the complainant obstructed the Taluk Surveyor. The accused and the complainant are neighbours. In the circumstances, the conviction is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with the same default clause and the direction to pay the compensation amount. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above. K.R.UDAYABHANU,

JUDGE

csl 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.