IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3225 of 2003(D) ------------------------------- CC.146/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA CRL.A.634/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/II ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SHAMEER @ SOJI S/O. PURUSHAN, CONVICT NO.3319, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.MANOJKUMAR,STATE BRIEF RESPONDENT: ---------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.3225 of 2003 ========================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of accused No.2 in C.C.No.146/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Aluva. Petitioner and the other accused were found guilty under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 I.P.C and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under the two counts. It was further directed that the sentences shall run consecutively. In appeal the above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. 2. In this revision petition, it is contended by Adv. Sri. Manoj Kumar, who has been appointed as State Brief, that the courts below were not justified in holding the petitioner guilty in the absence of any reliable or satisfactory evidence. Learned counsel has taken me through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the orders passed by the courts below. Crl.R.P.No.3225/2003 2 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence. In my view, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was satisfactory and cogent enough to hold the petitioner guilty. There is no merit in the revision petition, and therefore it is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs