IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2789 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.369/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.664/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- SAHADEVAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, POKAVILA VEEDU, CHAVARCODE, NAVAIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.M.S.SARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P.No. 2789 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner has been concurrently convicted for offences punishable under sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 IPC. He was the 1st accused in C.C. No.664/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala. He was charge sheeted for offences punishable under sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) read with section 34 IPC. However, he was convicted only for offences punishable under sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 IPC. For the said conviction, he was sentenced to fine only. 2. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction, which is accordingly confirmed. 3. The sentence of fine imposed on the revision Crl.R.P. 2789/08 -2- petitioner also does not call for any interference. 4. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the lower appellate court. 6. The revision petitioner is given one month's time from today to deposit the fine amount, failing which he shall undergo the default sentence. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.