Kerala High Court
P.P. Ashraf vs The State Of Kerala
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/4TH KARTHIKA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 4739 of 2013
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRRP 43/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI DATED 10-
12-2012
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 507/2009 of JUDL.MAG.OF FIRST CLASS-I, MANJERI DATED
01-10-2010
........................
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :
-----------------------------
1. P.P. ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMMED
PALAMPILAKKAL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SHAHANAS BABU, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED
KADIKKADAN HOUSE, OORAMUDUKK,
ANAKKAYAM, MANJERI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. T.M. ASHRAF, S/O.SULAIMAN
THORAPPA HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MANJERI, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676 121.
3. DR.JAYANARAYANAN
S/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI A.M., ALAZHI MANGALASSERI
MANA, ELANKOOR PO, MANJERI, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 122.
(MANJERI POLICE STATION LIMIT).
R1 & R2 BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK(SR.)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4739 of 2013
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------------
ANNX.1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C.NO.507 OF 2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI DATED 01-10-2010
ANNX.2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.R.RP.NO.43 OF 2010 OF ADDL.DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI DATED 10-12-2012
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl. M.C. No. 4739 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2017
O R D E R
By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Manjeri dated 10.12.2012 passed in Crl.R.P. No.43 of 2010.
2. The petitioners were accused in respect of an offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC at the instance of the 3rd respondent. They were summoned and tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manjeri in relation to Crime No. 893/08 being Calendar Case No.507 of 2009. Before the Magistrate, upon appearance, the petitioners pleaded guilty and were sentenced to fine of Rs.750/- in respect of offence under Section 323 IPC and Rs.500/- in respect of offence under Section 341 IPC.
3. The informant, being the victim, then preferred Criminal Revision Petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeri, being Crl. R.P. No.43 of 2010, which was allowed. The submission of the informant was that the sentence was Crl. M.C. No.4739 of 2013 -:2:- inadequate even though upon plead of guilty. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 354(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 354(4) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows :
"354. Language and contents of judgment.-
xx xx xx xx xx (4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Code."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the order of punishment on the ground aforesaid in as much as Section 354 (4) has no application to the present case. He pointed out that the punishment for an offence under Section 323 is one year and that under Section 341 is one month imprisonment or a fine up to Rs.500/- only. Reference to Section 354(4) would show that it is attracted only in cases where the punishment imposable is one year or more and the Court imposes a sentence of less than three Crl. M.C. No.4739 of 2013 -:3:- months. In the present case, the sentence that could be awarded is not above one year and further no sentence less than three months has been awarded. In fact there has been no sentence to imprisonment at all.
5. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the provisions of Section 354(4) could not be invoked. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of Section 354(4) the Magistrate ought to have recorded reasons for the sentence being a petty sentence. As noted above, it is the obligation cast by Section 354(4) and not otherwise. Thus clearly the order of the learned Sessions Judge was not correct. Let it be noted that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded that he found the sentence to be inadequate.
In that view of the matter, I have no other option but to allow the application and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge indicated above and restore the order of the Magistrate.
Sd/-
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice.
ttb/26/10