IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 628 OF 2008(C) ------------------------------ SC.807/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE CC.796/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNHAMU, CONVICT NO.4453, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. ADV.K.P.HARISH (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 628 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is undergoing sentence in S.C.807/2004 on the fie of Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode and C.C.796/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara. The former conviction was on 13.2.2007 for the offence under section 489C of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was also granted set off for the period from 15.11.2004 to 4.12.2004 and from 11.10.2006 onwards. In the latter case he was convicted and sentenced on 4.4.2007 to rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years for the offence under section 420 by the Magistrate. He was also granted set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner submitted two representations from jail, which was treated as criminal revision petition. The prayer is only for a direction to undergo the sentences in both the cases concurrently. Advocate Mr. K.P. Harish was appointed the counsel to argue the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and CRRP628/08 2 learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. In C.C.796/2004 revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 420 of IPC on 4.4.2007. The case is that he had cheated PW1, the defacto complainant in 1979 to the tune of Rs.54,750/- promising to arrange NOC. Petitioner was convicted in S.C.807/2004 for the offence under section 489C on 13.2.2007. That offence was committed on 27.9.2001. There is absolutely no connection with the two offences. Therefore petitioner cannot be permitted to undergo the sentence concurrently as sought for. The prayer is rejected. If petitioner is aggrieved by the conviction in any of the cases or both the cases, he is to file an appeal. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-