IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3948 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.323/2008 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.1115/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------- NAVAS, PUNNAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL, PALLISSERIKKAL P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SASTHAMCOTTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. R.P. No.3948 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated, this the 23rd day of December, 2010 ORDER In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation Levy and Appeal) Rule 1996. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The case of the prosecution is that the accused ,who had taken on lease shop room No.3 of the Sasthamcotta Panchayath Shopping Complex, had defaulted in payment of rent for the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 totalling to `29,097/- and the attempt of the Panchayath to recover the amount by issuing distrust warrant failed since the warrant was returned unexecuted. The petitioner has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation Levy and Appeal) Rule 1996. 3. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the judgments of the Courts below, I see little scope for interference. The findings recorded by the courts below are on the basis of appreciation of the Crl. R.P. No. 3948 of 2010 2 oral and documentary evidence. Both the courts below have believed the prosecution witnesses. Sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the concurrent findings. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the findings recorded by the courts below. 4. The petitioner is, however, given further time of one month from today to deposit the fine amount of `29,097/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand and ninety seven only). Subject to the above, this revision is dismissed. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj