RAVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is a member of scheduled tribe. In C.C.No. 1295/1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II (Forest Offences), Majeri he, along with accused Nos. 2 to 4, was convicted under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act r/w Section 39(3)(a) and 51 of the Kerala Wild Life Protection Act, on the allegation that the revision petitioner and others trespassed into the Government forest on 8.8.1993 and shot down a sumbar deer. The revision petitioner was arrested on the spot by the forest officials, but the others could not arrested. The skin and bone found in the possession of the revision petitioner were also seized by the forest officials as per mahazar.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction, all the four accused approached the Court of Sessions, Manjeri with Crl.A. No. 362/2002. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence against the first accused, but found the accused Nos. 2 to 4 not guilty. Accordingly the others were acquitted in appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial court as against the revision petitioner herein, and confirmed in appeal is rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 1,000/ -. Now the first accused has come up in revision before this Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence against him.

(3.) IT was submitted that the revision petitioner has already undergone sentence for ten months after the conviction. In such a circumstance he was granted bail by this Court pending the proceedings in revision. This Court granted suspension of sentence and released him on bail on the ground that he was aged 65 years at that time, and also on the ground that he had by that time served out the sentence for ten months. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the revision petitioner has in fact undergone sentence for ten months already. Now the revision petitioner is aged about 75 years, and admittedly he is a tribal. In the above circumstances I feel the necessity of modifying the sentence, by limiting it to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner. However, the fine sentence will have to be maintained. Subject to this modification in sentence, in the peculiar circumstances of the revision petitioner, this revision petition will have to be dismissed, confirming the conviction against him.