T.PRADEEP THEVARAKANDI HOUSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 04/12/2010 of the Court of Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, in Crl.Appeal No.832/2008, which was preferred against the order of conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 09.12.2008 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV, Kozhikode in C.C No. 91/2006. The revision petitioner is the sole accused involved in the aforesaid case. He was tried by the JFCM-IV, Kozhikode for the offences punishable under Sections 16 of Kerosene Control Order, 1968 R/W section 7(1)(a)(i) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, found guilty for the offences and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused was aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and has preferred Crl.Appeal No.832/2008 before the court of Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases) Kozhikode, challenging the same. The court of Appeal confirmed the finding of guilt, order of conviction and imposition of sentence by the trial court. It is aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court that the accused has approached this Court in revision.

(2.) Sri.R.Vijaya Kumari, the learned Counsel advanced arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner. According to her, prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to connect the accused with the offences alleged against him and thereby miserably failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. According to her, the witnesses of the prosecution have no consistent case and their version ought not to have been relied on by the trial court to arrive at the finding of guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him. According to her, the contraband was seized not from the premises possessed by the accused, but from a shed outside the premises where accused was conducting a workshop or working as an employee.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the court below has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and the finding of guilt and the consequent order of conviction and imposition of sentence are correct in all respects. According to him, legal grounds have not been pointed out by the revision petitioner to interfere with the judgment of the trial court, confirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, revision is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.