IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1204 of 2001(J) ------------------------------- CRA.261/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.707/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, SOMARAJAN PILLAI, PANICKAR VILA VEDDU, CHENCHERIKONAM. 2. CHELLAPPAN BABU, PLAVILA VEEDU, KATTUMUNCKKAL, KOONTHALLOOR, KIZHAVILAM VILLAGE. 3. SREEDHARAN MOHANAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, MAITHANAM, CHILAKKOOR DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE. 4. KUMARA PILLAI SOMASEKHARAN, KIPALLIVILAKATHU VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.P.PRABHANANDAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA (S.I. OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, CRIME NO.192/94), REPRESENTED BYTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J. Crl.R.P.No.1204 of 2001 Dated this the 28th day of September 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioners 1 to 4 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.707/94 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Offences alleged against them were under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C and under Section 3(2) (e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PDPP Act). All the petitioners were found not guilty under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C and acquitted them by the learned Magistrate and were found guilty under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. All the accused/revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo R.I for a further period of two months. The revision petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.No.261/1996. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The petitioners herein are challenging the concurrent findings before this Court by filing this revision petition. Crl.R.P.No.1204/01 2 2. The prosecution case is that on 20/05/1994 at about 3.25 p.m., the petitioners herein had pelted stones against the K.S.R.T.C buses in furtherance of their common intention and caused minor injuries to the drivers and conductors of the two buses and also caused damages to the K.S.R.T.C buses to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Revision petitioners 1 to 3 were employees of the K.S.R.T.C buses and the fourth petitioner was a sympathiser of the strike which was conducted by a section of K.S.R.T.C employees on the relevant date. The trial court, after considering the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, both oral and documentary, that is Pws.1 to 12, Exts.P1 to P6 and the defence evidence, Exts.D1 and D2, acquitted the revision petitioners under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C They were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. The defence of the accused was false implication which was not accepted by the trial court. The revision petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence passed against them before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the learned Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 28/07/2001 in Crl.A.No.261/1996, has re-appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and the defence, confirmed the conviction and Crl.R.P.No.1204/01 3 sentence and the Crl.Appeal was dismissed. Hence this Crl.R.P has been preferred by the revision petitioners herein. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the incident occurred in 1994, one and half decades ago and none of the accused have committed any similar offence thereafter and has pleaded for leniency. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that all the accused/ revision petitioners 1 to 4 are senior citizens, aged more than 60 years and petitioners 1 to 3 had already retired from service, leniency as prayed for may be granted. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. After considering the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution both oral and documentary and also the defence evidence, Exts.D1 and D2, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings against the petitioners herein awarded under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am convinced that some leniency can be granted in favour of the revision petitioners for the reason that after the incident Crl.R.P.No.1204/01 4 occurred on 20/05/1994, more than 15 years have already been elapsed and they were facing criminal proceedings. For all these period, the revision petitioners were under the threat of imprisonment. Imprisonment is mandatory for the offence under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. 5. Therefore, conviction of petitioners 1 to 4 under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act is confirmed and the sentence imposed is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a further amount of Rs.2,000/- each as fine and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one week each in addition to the fine of Rs.2,000/- each already imposed by the trial court with the default sentence which was confirmed by the appellate court. The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on or before 29/10/2010 to receive the sentence. Time is granted till 29/10/2010 to pay the fine amount. Their bail bonds are cancelled. 6. The revision petition is allowed in part as above. (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.1204/01 5 Crl.R.P.No.1204/01 6 Crl.R.P.No.1204/01 7