IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3022 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.258/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.2160/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.BABU, CHONKI POIKA KOCHUPUTHENVEEDU, PERAYAM, PADAPPAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, EAST KALLADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, ALONG WITH CRRP Nos. 2909,3020 and 2910 of 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. Nos. 3022, 2909,3020 and 2910 of 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2010 ORDER The common revision petitioner in these revisions is the common accused who was prosecuted by the Secretary, East Kallada Grama Panchayath for an offence punishable under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayath Taxation and Appeal Rules, 1994. He had defaulted payment of the license fee in respect of the meat stalls which he had successfully bid in auction from the East Kallada Grama Panchayath for the period 1997-1998 . The Secretary of the Panchayath was examined as P.W.1 and he proved the case of the prosecution. The courts below relying on the testimony of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence including the agreement executed by the revision petitioner found him guilty of the offence Crl.R.P. Nos. 3022, 2909,3020 and 2910 of 2003 -:2:- but sentenced him to fine of different amounts depending on the arrears of license fee due from him and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. A sum of Rs. 1,500/- by way of cost was also awarded to the complainant. The trial Court's order was confirmed in appeal. It is thereafter that the revision petitioner has approached this Court challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by placing reliance upon the decisions in Peravoor Grama Panchayath v. Rafi - 2004 (2) KLT 1115 and Thalavoor Grama Panchayath v. Salim - 2004 (3) KLT 835. Since the decisions upon which the revision petitioner placed reliance have been subsequently overruled in Pudunagaram Grama Panchayath v. Saleem - 2005 (4) KLT 415, the contention of the revision petitioner that the defaulted amounts cannot be recovered through such prosecution is unsustainable. Hence, the launching of prosecution was perfectly legal and the courts below were fully Crl.R.P. Nos. 3022, 2909,3020 and 2910 of 2003 -:3:- justified in imposing the fine. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction entered and the sentence passed. These Revisions, are, accordingly, dismissed. The amounts, if any, paid by the revision petitioner towards fine pursuant to the orders of the first appellate court shall be adjusted towards the amount payable by the revision petitioner. Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2010. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge ani.