IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 838 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.165/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)- III, KASARAGODE STC.35/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... REVN PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------------- P.K.SEETHARAMA, S/O.B.K.KUNHAPPA GUTHU, SHRI SAKTHI NILIYA, UPPALA. BY ADV. MR. T.B.SHAJIMON MS. GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:- -------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MANGALPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANGALPADY KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 838 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the Secretary, Mangalpady Grama Panchayath in a private complaint instituted as S.T.C. No. 35 of 2003 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 r/w Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules. According to the complainant, the revision petitioner/accused had wilfully refused to pay a sum of Rs.91,245/- towards the rent payable in respect of shop room No. NP V/304(L) demanded under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Act 1963 (Acquisition and Transaction of Immovable Properties Rules) and adding the demand notice fee at Rs.20/- and warrant fee of Rs.25/- and the accused committed default in payment of Rs.91,270/-. Crl.R.P. No. 838/2010 : 2 : 2. On the side of the prosecution, the Panchayath Secretary was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were got marked. 3. The learned Magistrate after trial, found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence under Rule 27(I)(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and to pay the defaulted amount of Rs.91,270/- under Rule 27(I) (b) of the said Rules. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 165 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-III, as per judgment dated 25.04.2006 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the trial court. Hence this revision. 4. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction on various grounds including the ground that the amount being arrears of rent, could not be recovered under the aforesaid Rule, in Crl.R.P. No. 838/2010 : 3 : the light of the decision reported in Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat v. A. Saleem and another - ILR 2005(4) Kerala 361, the conviction as well as the sentence including the direction to pay the defaulted amount are perfectly justified. I see little scope for interference in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is given five months' time to deposit the fine amount as well as the arrears of rent. Amounts, if any, paid to the Panchayath shall be adjusted towards the fine amount in case the petitioner produces evidence of payment to the Panchayath, before the trial court. Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 838/2010 : 4 :