BALAKRISHNAN AJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioners were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Attingal U/s. 143, 147, 341 225B, 426, and 353 r/w. 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods under the above Sections. The sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court. The appeal filed was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court -I, Thiruvananthapuram. Challenging the above judgment, the accused preferred this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 17.11.1992 at 9 a.m. the Preventive Officer and party attached to Chirayinkeezhu Excise Range conducted a search in the shop of the 5th accused at Pulimootu Kadavu in Pandakassala and seized a plastic container containing 10 litres of illicit arrack and arrested the 5th accused from there. The relatives of the 5th accused and others gathered there, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, Accused 1 to 4 forcibly taken the 5th accused from the custody of the Excise party and 1st accused kicked PW1, 2nd accused snatched the plastic container from PW1, accused 3 and 4 assaulted and torn the uniform of PW1 and accused 1 to 7 managed to escape the 5th accused from the lawful custody of PW1. On the basis of information, Chirayinkeezhu Police registered the above crime and after investigation laid charge in the trial court.

(3.) NOW the question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the court below? If so, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below U/s. 143, 147, 341 225 (b), 426, 353 r/w. 149 IPC are sustainable in law?