IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1296 of 2001 ---------------------------------------------- CRA.172/1999 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.79/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: 1. G.VISWANATH SHET, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O GIRIVAS SHET, RESIDING IN CC.10/168, ANARAVATHI, KOCHI - 1. 2. PADMANABHA SHET, S/O GOVINDA RAJAN, VADI, KAIKKULANGARASSERI, KOLLAM. BY ADV. G.VISWANATH SHET(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. PANDURANGA SHET, S/O GANESH SHET, OPP. POLICE QUARTERS, KACHERI MUKKU, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1296 of 2001 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence under Section 290 of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi in C.C.No. 79/1996. Petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No. 172/999. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re- appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. When the revision was taken on 18.5.2010, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that revision petitioners sent a letter to him asking him to relinquish the vakalath and therefore, he cannot appear. Thereafter, even though the revision was posted on several occasions, showing the names of the petitioners, they did not appear. CRRP 1296/01 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that from 14.1.1996 to 21.1.1996 there was a festival in Sree Gopalakrishna Temple, Amaravathi. On 21.1.1996 at about 12.30 a.m., while the Pooja in connection with the festival was in progress, petitioners came there fully drunk and started abusing first respondent, who was standing in the courtyard along with PW2, one Rajeev and Kannan. They were uttering obscene words in the presence of the public causing annoyance to them and thereby caused nuisance and committed offences under Sections 290 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners pleaded not guilty. 5. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and Exhibit P1 for the complainant and evidence of DWs 1 and 2 and Exhibits D1 to D3, on the side of the petitioners, found the petitioners guilty and convicted and sentenced them for the offences. 6. Though petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re- appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and CRRP 1296/01 3 sentence. This revision is filed contending that courts below should not have relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and should have found that the complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate with oblique motive because of the civil disputes and pendency of the suit. 7. Learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, in the light of the evidence of DW1 and Exhibits D1 to D3. DW1 is the Poojari of the Temple. Evidence of DW1 shows that he was conducting the Pooja on that night and first petitioner never used to enter the temple. But, on that night, though he had not seen the incident, he was told that they had entered the Temple and caused nuisance. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, evidence of DW1, in fact, corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to some extent. Though PWs 1 to 4 were cross-examined, nothing was brought out to disbelieve their evidence. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, based on proper appreciation of evidence that CRRP 1296/01 4 petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, entered the Temple in a drunken stage and caused nuisance and uttered obscene words to the annoyance of the public and thereby committed offences under Sections 290 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 290 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal. 8. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners only with fine. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. 7th June, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv CRRP 1296/01 5 M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1296 of 2001 -------------------------- ORDER 7th June, 2010