IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 625 of 2000() ---------------------------------------- CRA.127/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.9/1995 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI .................... REVN. PETITIONER - APPELLANT - 7TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMBI, S/O. SREEDHARAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNNAKARYMURI, VELIYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENT - COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.3486 OF 2000 IN CRL. R.P. NO. 625 OF 2000 DISMISSED. 27.3.2008 ID/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. vsv A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 625 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of March 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty under Section 225 B IPC both by the trial court and the appellate court has preferred this revision petition challenging the said order of conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on October 2, 1994 at about 3 p.m. PW1, Excise Inspector, Kuttanad Range had apprehended the petitioner with 3½ litres of illicit arrack in his possession. When PW1 and the patrol party were about to take the petitioner to the Excise Office after arresting him and completing the formalities of seizure sampling etc. of the contraband accused 1 to 6 had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, in furtherance of the common object to cause obstruction to the discharge of public duty by PW1 and other officers and rescued the petitioner from their custody. While doing so, they had abused PW1 to 5 and others in filthy and abusive language. PW1 had immediately lodged a complaint Crl.R.P.No.625 OF 2000 :: 2 :: before the Police in this connection. Thus, the petitioner and 6 others were prosecuted by Ramankary Police for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 186, 189, 294(b), 225B read with Section 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on its side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that they were implicated in the case by the Police at the instance of the Excise Officials for the reason that they had been agitating against the illegal acts of the excise officials in conducting indiscriminate raids at the residence of the local people. 5. The learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against all the accused under Section 143, 147, 186, 189 and 225B read with Section 149 IPC. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 186 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Crl.R.P.No.625 OF 2000 :: 3 :: Section 189 IPC and also two months rigorous imprisonment under 225B IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 143, 146 and 147 IPC. It was further directed that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 6. The order of the trial court was challenged by the accused before the appellate court. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the charge against accused 1 to 6. They were accordingly acquitted. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that the petitioner (accused No.1)was guilty under Section 225B IPC. He was acquitted of the offences under the other counts. Hence this revision petition. 7. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding entered by the courts below under 225B IPC cannot be sustained at all, since the prosecution had failed to produce any document to show that the petitioner had been taken into custody or arrested in connection with any case much less for an offence under the Abkari Act. He points out that Section 225B would be attracted only if the accused Crl.R.P.No.625 OF 2000 :: 4 :: intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself or of any other person, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is that in the absence of any material on record to show that at the instance of any one or the other accused any person had been rescued from custody or lawful detention, the prosecution could not have succeeded. PW1 to 5 were indisputably on official duty on the day in question. All these witnesses had categorically asserted that the petitioner was apprehended with contraband liquor (3½ litres) in his possession. It had also come out from their evidence that PW1 had arrested the petitioner after his apprehension. These witnesses also deposed that the contraband liquor was seized under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. It was immediately thereafter when the Excise officials were about to take the petitioner to the Excise office accused 1 to 6 had come Crl.R.P.No.625 OF 2000 :: 5 :: to the scene and rescued the petitioner, 8. Having carefully perused the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 5, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the veracity of the statements made by them under oath. The trial court as well as the appellate court had found the evidence of these witnesses credit worthy and believable. In the absence of any of material on record casting any shadow of doubt on the acceptability of the above testimonies, I do not find any reason to take a different view. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that Ext.P5 certified copy of occurrence report in relation to the apprehension and seizure of the contraband from the petitioner would show that petitioner was in lawful detention when he had been rescued by the other accused. He submits that undoubtedly the petitioner had escaped from custody taking advantage of the intervention of the other accused. Even if the other accused have been acquitted by the appellate court, petitioner cannot escape from the culpability, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor. Having considered the entire materials available on record, Crl.R.P.No.625 OF 2000 :: 6 :: I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes