Kerala High CourtLavi vs S.I. Of Police on 18 November, 2009Author:P.Q.Barkath AliBench:P.Q.Barkath AliIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1478 of 2001()



1. LAVI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. S.I. OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :18/11/2009

 O R D E R
                            P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          Crl.R.P.No.1478 OF 2001
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009

                                      ORDERRevision petitioners are accused in C.C.549/96 of Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara and appellant in Crl.Appeal

No.404/1998 of Sessions Court, Kozhikode. They were charged under

Section 353 read withSection 34of IPC and were convicted thereunder

and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

each by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal. Now the accused

persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and

sentence.2.   The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before

the trial court in brief is this :CW1 was the then Second Grade Health Inspector attached to

Muncipal Office, Vadakara. After the incident he died. PWs 1 and 9

are the junior health officers attached to Vadakara Municipality. On

March 14, 1996 at about 7 am. they went for inspection in Delux Hotel

functioning in room No. 111/9 of Vadakara Municipality of which first

Crl.R.P.No.290/2001            Page numbers

accused was the licencee. Second accused is the accountant therein.

They obstructed CW1 , PWs 1 and 9 from entering the hotel and inspite

of that they entered the hotel and seized old food articles. When CW1

was preparing mahazar the second accused snatched the pen and paper

from the hands of CW1 and accused persons took away the old food

articles seized by them and kept in the jeep. CW1 filed report to the

Municipal Secretary who in turn forwarded the same to the station

house office, Vadakara. On receipt of the complaint, PW8, the Head

Constable attached to Vadakara Police Station registered the case .

Ext.P3 is the said FIR.      PW10 is another Head Constable who

conducted investigation in this case. CW13 is the Circle Inspector of

Police who filed the charge sheet before the trial court. According to

prosecution, accused persons obstructed the officials CW1, PW1 and

PW9 from discharging their official duties and that thereby committed

the offence punishable underSection 353read withSection 34of IPC.3.     The accused person on appearance before the trial court

pleaded not guilty to a charge underSection 353read withSection 34of IPC. PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on

the side of the prosecution. When questioned underSection 313of

Crl.R.P.No.290/2001            Page numbersCr.P.C., the accused denied the incident. No defence evidence was

adduced.4.     The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the

revision petitioners guilty of the offence punishable underSection 353read withSection 34of IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced

them as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. The accused persons

have now come up in revision challenging their conviction and

sentence.5.     Head the learned counsel for the revision petitioners

Sri.Sunny Mathew and the learned Public Prosecutor for the state.6.     The following points arise for consideration :1)    Whether the conviction of the

                revision petitioners underSection 353read

                withSection 34of IPC rendered by the trial

                court which is confirmed in appeal is

                sustainable ?2)    Whether the sentence imposed on

                the revision petitioners is excessive or unduly

                harsh ?Crl.R.P.No.290/2001            Page numbers

      Point No.17.     PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked

on the side of the prosecution to establish the guilty of the accused

persons before the trial court. CW1 who is the defacto complainant in

this case died. PWs 1 and 9 who were along with CW1 at the time of

the incident testified in terms of the prosecution. I have gone through

their evidence.      Nothing was brought out during their cross

examination to discredit their evidence. I find no reason to discredit

their evidence.8.     PWs 2 and 3 are the workers of the Municipality who

accompanied CW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

Pw4 is the lorry driver of the Municipality.        PWs 5 and 6 are

independent witnesses. All of them turned hostile and did not support

the prosecution. PW 7 is the attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar. PW8 is

the Head Constable who registered the FIR. PW9 is the Junior Health

Inspector who accompanied CW1 at the time of incident. PW10 is the

Head Constable who conducted investigation.9.     Counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the action

alleged by the accused persons cannot be considered as a use of

Crl.R.P.No.290/2001             Page numbers

criminal force to deter CW1 , PWs 1 and 9 from discharging their

official duties and that therefore they cannot be said to have committed

any offence underSection 353of IPC. It was also argued by the

counsel for the revision petitioners that evidence of PWs 1 and 9 who

are officials without any corroboration cannot be accepted. I am unable

to accept the above contention of the revision petitioners. Both the

courts below have chosen to believe the evidence of PWs 1 and 9. I

find no reason to come to a different conclusion. That apart, the action

of the accused persons snatching paper and pen from CW1 and taking

away seized old food items kept in the jeep and throwing it on the road

definitely amounts to obstructing the public officials from discharging

their duties. For all these reasons I am inclined to hold that the accused

persons have committed the offence of obstructing public officials from

discharging their official functions as contemplated underSection 353of IPC. That being so, I am inclined to confirm the conviction of the

revision petitioner underSection 353read withSection 34of IPC.Point No.210.    As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a

punishment of simple imprisonment for three months which is

Crl.R.P.No.290/2001            Page numbers

confirmed in appeal. The incident occurred on 14-03-1996. Further

the accused persons have not made any physical assault on CW1 and

PWs 1 and 9. The first accused is aged 50 at the time of the incident.

Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that a sentence of

imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each

would meet the ends of justice.In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of

the revision petitioners underSection 353read withSection 34of IPC

is confirmed. The sentence is modified to the effect that revision

petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of

court and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for two months each. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

One month's time is granted for payment of fine.P.Q.BARKATH ALI
                                                           JUDGE




sv.Crl.R.P.No.290/2001    Page numbers