IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1366 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.137/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD CC.414/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ANANDAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, VADAKKETHARA, WATER TANK, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 1366 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27 th day of May , 2011 ORDER First accused in C.C.414/2004 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Palakkad is the revision petitioner. The challenge in this revision petition is against the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 20.1.2004 the accused persons four in number with an intention to cause damage to public property in connection with a 'harthal' blocked the bus bearing registration No.KL 15 - 4909 (TP 731) of KSRTC on the public road National Highway 47 at Railway Station Junction, Kanjikode and the first accused opened the front door of the bus and pelted stone on the front glass and the said glass was broken. According to the prosecution, the KSRTC sustained a loss of Rs.8,000/-(rupees eight thousand only) due to the above act of the accused. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offence under Crl.R.P.No.1366 of 2011 : 2 : Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. On the basis of the said allegation crime No. 147/04 was registered in the Valayar Police Station for the said offence. After investigation, report was filed in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad wherein C.C.414/04 was instituted. When the accused appeared a formal charge was framed and read over and explained the same to him to which the accused pleaded not guilty which resulted in the further trial of the case during which PW 1 to 5 were examined and Ext.P1 to P5 were marked. From the side of the defence DW1 was examined. Finally the trial court found that the revision petitioner/1st accused is guilty of the charge framed against him were as A2 to A4 were found not guilty and they were accordingly acquitted. On conviction the petitioner/ 1st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand only). 3. Aggrieved by the above order of conviction and sentence the revision petitioner had preferred an appeal, i.e., Crl. Appeal No.137/2006, but by judgment dated 2.1.2010 in Crl.Appeal Crl.R.P.No.1366 of 2011 : 3 : No.137/2006 the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II Palakkad dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused. It is the above judgment of the courts below and the conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the judgment of trial court as well as the appellate court. 5. Though several contentions are advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as this court is not inclined to entertain any of such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed against the petitioner is exorbitant and unreasonable and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the maximum sentence prescribed is 5 years, the trial court has imposed only a sentence of 6 months and hence there is no scope for any further interference. Crl.R.P.No.1366 of 2011 : 4 : 6 I have carefully consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The trial court as well as the appellate court has concurrently found that the revision petitioner is guilty of the charge leveled against him and in the said incident the bus belonged to KSRTC got damaged and KSRTC sustained a loss. The above findings of the court below are supported by evidence and materials. Therefore, the ground taken against the conviction are not sustainable. 7. Regarding the sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter. It appears that at time of the incident the revision petitioner was only at the age of 27 and the incident was taken place connected with a mass agitation and all other accused in the same case are already acquitted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and considering the above mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence imposed requires reconsideration and modification. In the present case the petitioner had already Crl.R.P.No.1366 of 2011 : 5 : undergone imprisonment for 80 days, nearly 3 months, and I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the petitioner can be reduced into the period, which he had already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner by he trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to the period which he had already undergone as on today. Subject to the above modification with respect to the sentence this Crl.R.P. Is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence u/s 3 2(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. In the light of the above modification with respect to the sentence, the revision petitioner is entitled to get released from jail with effect from 28.5.2011, if he is not required in any other case. Therefore, the registry is directed to forward the gist of this order to Central Prison, Kannur, for appropriate action. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kp Crl.R.P.No.1366 of 2011 : 6 :