Kerala High Court
Gopi S/O. Raman vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2016
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 162 of 2004 (A)
--------------------------------
CRA 140/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
ST 207/2001 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
GOPI S/O. RAMAN, KARIYIL VEEDU,
VELOOR KARA, VELOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SCL.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No. 162 of 2004
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
ORDER
The accused in S.T.No.207 of 2001 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Kottayam, filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 3 r/w Section 6 of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956.
2. Heard.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 11.01.2001 at about 4.30 p.m., the revision petitioner was found exhibiting and selling harmful publications, namely, 'Devi' and 'Rugma' along with other old books, on the south-eastern corner of the old private bus stand, Thirunakkara, Kottayam.
4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.P1 and P2 were marked for the prosecution, besides Crl.R.P.No. 162 of 2004 -2- identifying MO 1 and MO2. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.
5. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 3 r/w Section 6 of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance is available before the court to indicate that the concurrent finding by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 3 r/w Section 6 of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.
6. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The revision petitioner was aged 51 years during the relevant period. The revision petitioner is presently aged 70 years. There is no Crl.R.P.No. 162 of 2004 -3- criminal antecedent against the revision petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 3 r/w Section 6 of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 7.04.2016 to suffer the sentence.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/19.02.2016 True Copy PA to Judge