RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The permissibility of drawing double presumption under law arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) The courts below concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the ft as alleged by the prosecution. The trial court sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellate court did not grant him any relief even in that regard. He has come up in revision. As the revision petitioner and Counsel remained absent at the time of hearing, I did not have the occasion to hear them. Hearing the parties/counsel in revision is also optional under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) I have perused the records.