IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1478 of 2001() ----------------------------------------- CRA.404/1998 of III RD ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.549/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ------------------------------- 1. ALAVI, S/O. AHAMMED, PANDIKASALA VVALAPPU HOUSE, THAZHAYANGADI, VADAKARA. 2. NOUSHAD, S/O. ASHIM, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.6924/2001 IN CRRP. NO.1478/2001 DISMISSED 18/11/2009 SD/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1478 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners are accused in C.C.549/96 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.404/1998 of Sessions Court, Kozhikode. They were charged under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC and were convicted thereunder and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal. Now the accused persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the trial court in brief is this : CW1 was the then Second Grade Health Inspector attached to Muncipal Office, Vadakara. After the incident he died. PWs 1 and 9 are the junior health officers attached to Vadakara Municipality. On March 14, 1996 at about 7 am. they went for inspection in Delux Hotel functioning in room No. 111/9 of Vadakara Municipality of which first Crl.R.P.No.290/2001 Page numbers accused was the licencee. Second accused is the accountant therein. They obstructed CW1 , PWs 1 and 9 from entering the hotel and inspite of that they entered the hotel and seized old food articles. When CW1 was preparing mahazar the second accused snatched the pen and paper from the hands of CW1 and accused persons took away the old food articles seized by them and kept in the jeep. CW1 filed report to the Municipal Secretary who in turn forwarded the same to the station house office, Vadakara. On receipt of the complaint, PW8, the Head Constable attached to Vadakara Police Station registered the case . Ext.P3 is the said FIR. PW10 is another Head Constable who conducted investigation in this case. CW13 is the Circle Inspector of Police who filed the charge sheet before the trial court. According to prosecution, accused persons obstructed the officials CW1, PW1 and PW9 from discharging their official duties and that thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The accused person on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC. PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under Section 313 of Crl.R.P.No.290/2001 Page numbers Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incident. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. The accused persons have now come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 5. Head the learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri.Sunny Mathew and the learned Public Prosecutor for the state. 6. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal is sustainable ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is excessive or unduly harsh ? Crl.R.P.No.290/2001 Page numbers Point No.1 7. PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the prosecution to establish the guilty of the accused persons before the trial court. CW1 who is the defacto complainant in this case died. PWs 1 and 9 who were along with CW1 at the time of the incident testified in terms of the prosecution. I have gone through their evidence. Nothing was brought out during their cross examination to discredit their evidence. I find no reason to discredit their evidence. 8. PWs 2 and 3 are the workers of the Municipality who accompanied CW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Pw4 is the lorry driver of the Municipality. PWs 5 and 6 are independent witnesses. All of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW 7 is the attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar. PW8 is the Head Constable who registered the FIR. PW9 is the Junior Health Inspector who accompanied CW1 at the time of incident. PW10 is the Head Constable who conducted investigation. 9. Counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the action alleged by the accused persons cannot be considered as a use of Crl.R.P.No.290/2001 Page numbers criminal force to deter CW1 , PWs 1 and 9 from discharging their official duties and that therefore they cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 353 of IPC. It was also argued by the counsel for the revision petitioners that evidence of PWs 1 and 9 who are officials without any corroboration cannot be accepted. I am unable to accept the above contention of the revision petitioners. Both the courts below have chosen to believe the evidence of PWs 1 and 9. I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. That apart, the action of the accused persons snatching paper and pen from CW1 and taking away seized old food items kept in the jeep and throwing it on the road definitely amounts to obstructing the public officials from discharging their duties. For all these reasons I am inclined to hold that the accused persons have committed the offence of obstructing public officials from discharging their official functions as contemplated under Section 353 of IPC. That being so, I am inclined to confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC. Point No.2 10. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a punishment of simple imprisonment for three months which is Crl.R.P.No.290/2001 Page numbers confirmed in appeal. The incident occurred on 14-03-1996. Further the accused persons have not made any physical assault on CW1 and PWs 1 and 9. The first accused is aged 50 at the time of the incident. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each would meet the ends of justice. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence is modified to the effect that revision petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. Their bail bonds are cancelled. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.290/2001 Page numbers