IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2698 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.83/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.129/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- FINCE, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS PRINCE) S/O.PAUL, 'KUTTIKADAN HOUSE', PAZHUVIL, KURUMBILAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: pm S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2698 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the 4th accused in C.C No.129/06 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Thrissur. He was prosecuted with three others (A1 to A3) for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Anthikkad police station. Pending trial, A3 had passed away. Negativing the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused, the trial magistrate found them guilty and convicted them of the offences imputed imposing various terms of imprisonments for such offences with direction to undergo the punishment concurrently. Against the conviction, the accused (A1 and A2), both of them together, and A4, the present revision petitioner, separately, filed appeals before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the conviction against them for the offence under Section 427 of the Crl. R.P No.2698 OF 2011 2 Indian Penal Code, against all the three accused, was upheld imposing a fine of `.2,000/- each with default term of imprisonment of one month each. Challenge in the revision by the 4th accused, A4, is against his conviction and sentence under Section 427 of the penal code as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner, A4, submitted that he is not assailing the conviction and sentence but only making a request that it should not have any bearing or influence over the civil dispute pending over the parties. Fine amount imposed in the case has already been remitted by the petitioner, A4, is the submission of the counsel. The revision has been filed by the petitioner, A4, since he apprehends that unless a challenge thereto is made seeking a clarification as indicated above it may adversely affect him in the civil suit pending before the court over the disputes regarding the boundaries separating the properties of the de facto complainant and the petitioner. A judgment of a criminal court is has no bearing over lis in a civil court. Even if it is based on the same cause of action it has got a limited purpose only as mentioned under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. If only the judgment rendered by the criminal court has some relevance as Crl. R.P No.2698 OF 2011 3 covered by Section 43 of the Evidence Act, then alone it may have some significance, that too, for the limited purpose, before a civil court. The civil court must decide the disputes involved on the evidence before it and it cannot relegate its jurisdiction thereof placing any reliance on a judgment of the criminal court even if it is over the identical matter. So much so, I find that this court need not make any clarification as canvassed by the counsel. Revision dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge