IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3922 of 2009 ------ ------------------------------ CRA.570/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD CC.654/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- M.ANANDAN, S/O.MUTHAYYA, AGED 35 YEARS, KAIRALI ESTATE, CARDAMOM DIVISION, KARAPPARA, NELLIYAMPATHY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3922 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur in C.C.No.654 of 2003 and the judgment of the Sessions Court, Palakkad Division in Crl.A.No.570 of 2007. Though Initially, the revision petitioner/accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 451 and 448 of I.P.C., the trial court found that the accused is guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. and not guilty under Section 451 I.P.C. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 448 of I.P.C. and in case of default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 427 of I.P.C. and in default, to undergo 20 days simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Crl.R.PNO. 3922 of 2009 :-2-: Rs.150/- was ordered to be paid to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In appeal, the lower appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 427 I.P.C., but the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner under Section 448 I.P.C. was confirmed. The direction to pay an amount of Rs.150/- as compensation was also set aside by the appellate court. The revision petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence under Section 448 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5.7.2003, at about 11.30 a.m. the accused broke open the lock of the door of the building No.VII/243 of Nelliyampathy Panchayath which was in the possession of Kairali Estate and that he trespassed into that building and started residing therein. During the trial, Pws.1 to 7 were examined from the side of the prosecution and marked Exts.P1 to P4. There was no evidence either oral or documentary from the side of the defence. The defence taken by the revision petitioner is of Crl.R.PNO. 3922 of 2009 :-3-: total denial and contended that he was falsely implicated in the crime due to labour dispute. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is entitled to remain in the room, where he was alleged to have trespassed. The lower appellate court, after appreciating the evidence, came into a specific finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the revision petitioner had broken the lock as there is no evidence. But the evidence of Pws.1,2,4 and 6 is to the effect that the revision petitioner/accused was seen in the quarters unauthorisedly. Pws. 1 and 6 have deposed to the effect that the quarters were locked up after its vacation by the last occupant, viz., one Chinnaswami. It is also established by the prosecution, especially through the evidence of Pws.1,2,4 and 6 that the accused was found in occupancy of the quarters shortly after its vacation by the last occupant. According to the lower appellate court, though the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not Crl.R.PNO. 3922 of 2009 :-4-: sufficient to hold that the revision petitioner/accused broke open the lock, they have deposed that the accused was found unauthorisedly, in the room which was locked after vacating the same by the last occupant. The above finding of the lower appellate court is based upon the materials and evidence and nothing brought out to interfere with such finding on facts. 4. Thus, from the above discussion, it can be seen that the lower appellate court, after assigning reason, found that the accused is guilty only under Section 488 of I.P.C. The petitioner has no case that any of the courts below had omitted to consider any material or evidence and the revision petitioner miserably failed to point out any impropriety or illegality of the judgments. Therefore, I find Crl.R.PNO. 3922 of 2009 :-5-: no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE. Crl.R.PNO. 3922 of 2009 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ -------- O R D E R Crl.R.PNO. 3922 of 2009 :-7-: DATED: -10-2009