Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Odiase Austin Guobadia on 3 May, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1153 of 2014
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 558/2013 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS
COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 03-05-2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1420/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT:
------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
KALADY
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
---------------------
ODIASE AUSTIN GUOBADIA,
FUJAH STREET, SURAIERU, LAGOS,
RUPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (CONVICT NO 1380, CENTRAL PRISON
VIYYUR, THRISSUR)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
ab
P.UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.R.P No.1153 of 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2014
O R D E R
This is a revision brought by the State against judgment of acquittal made in appeal. The respondent herein faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perumbavoor in C.C.No.1420/2012 under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The trial court convicted him, but in appeal brought before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as Crl.A. No.558/2013 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha acquitted the respondent. The said acquittal in appeal is challenged by the State by way of revision.
2. In fact this revision is not maintainable in view of Sub Section (4) of Section 401 Cr.P.C because the State has right of appeal under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Section 401 (4) provides that where an appeal lies under the code, and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. In this case conversion of the revision as appeal as Crl.R.P No.1153 of 2014 2 provided under sub Section 5 is not possible because filing of appeal under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C will have to undergo its own special procedure. I find in the above circumstances that this revision is liable to be dismissed, of course without prejudice to the right of the State to file a proper appeal under Section 378 (1)(b) Cr.P.C against the judgment of acquittal.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the State to file appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C, of course subject to the question of limitation. The State can take back the certified copy of the impugned judgment for filing proper appeal.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab