SUBASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur, who was examined as PW4, in C.C. No. 116/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Punalur prosecuted the revision petitioner accusing offence under Section 4 read with 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hear-in-after referred to as 'the Act'), with an allegation that at 8.30 A.M. on 13/10/2000 the revision petitioners were found transporting sand, collected from a ghat from where the sand collection was prohibited, in a lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-10- A/349 while PW4 moving on petrol duty along Kayamkulam - Punallur public road at Nellippalli. Revision petitioners pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 4 were examined. Exhibits P1 and P2 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, revision petitioners were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incriminating evidence and further advanced a case that they were falsely implicated. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, they were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.227/2003 before the Sessions Judge, Kollam, who, by the impugned judgment dated 5/1/2006, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

(3.) I have heard Adv. Sri. B. Gopakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Smt. Sareena George, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgments of the courts below as well as the evidence on record.