VISWANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is a convict in an Abkari offence. This revision petition is directed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 360 of 2013 dated 11/11/2014 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam confirming the conviction entered against the revision petitioner in CC No. 1480 of 2009 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur. The revision petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 15(c) of the Abkari Act and on being convicted thereunder he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that Crl. A. No. 360 of 2013 was filed by the revision petitioner and the impugned judgment was passed against him, without going into its merits, obviously, owing to his consecutive absence especially on 11/11/2014, when the appeal was taken up for consideration. The judgment of the Appellate Court is so condensed that it is extractable in three lines as hereunder:

(2.) Contextually, it will not be malapropos to refer to the relevant provisions of law. The procedures to be followed while considering an appeal has been provided under Sections 384 and 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 384 Cr.P.C. provides the procedures for summary dismissal of appeal and it reads thus:

(3.) I may hasten to add that though the aforequoted portion would suggest that the counsel for the appellant was also heard in view of the specific statement in the impugned judgment that the appellant was absent and there was no representation it could only be taken that the appeal was dismissed as per the impugned judgment without hearing the appellant as also his pleader. At the same time, there is no reason to discredit the statement that the memorandum of appeal and the records of evidence were perused before passing the judgment. The impugned judgment would reveal that even after perusing the records of evidence the Appellate Court has not cross-checked the reasoning and finding recorded by the Trial Court to satisfy itself whether they are consistent with the evidence on record. It was without making such an exercise, as is required under law, that the conviction of the revision petitioner was confirmed as per the impugned judgment stating that the appellant had been consecutively absent. However, nothing has been stated therein about the sentence. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to Section 387 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: