Jiji vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 13174 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jiji vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2023

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
   FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 4376 OF 2006
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 258/2004 OF DISTRICT COURT &
        SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA
      CC 636/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
                           MANANTHAVADY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

          JIJI, S/O. CYRIL JOSEPH,
          UPPUVEEDU, CHALIGADHA, PAYAMPALLY P.O.,
          MANANTHAVADY.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH
          SRI.SAKIR.K.H.
          SRI.S.VASUDEVAN



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTING ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN,
          THOLPETTY RANGE,
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

          BY ADV. SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  CRL.REV.PET NO. 4376 OF 2006

                                 2




                              ORDER

The accused No.2 was found not guilty by

the first appellate court and he was acquitted.

But accused No.1 was found guilty by the first

appellate court and concurred with the finding of

conviction for the offence under Section 29 r/w

Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act,

1972. It is against the said concurrent finding

of conviction, this revision was filed.

2. At the revisional stage, the focus was

on the place from where the alleged meat was

seized. It is submitted that no documentary

evidence was adduced to show that it is the

house of the accused No.1. But the seizure is

effected in his immediate presence and no such

case was raised even at the time of Section 313 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4376 OF 2006

Cr.P.C. examination. On the other hand, there is

concurrent finding on that factual issue, hence

deserves interference.

3. The substantive sentence awarded against

accused No.1 for the offence under Section 29

r/w Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act is to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a

fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month each. It was reduced

by the first appellate court to simple

imprisonment for six months and a fine of

Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month. Being a first time

offender and there is no bad antecedent reported,

the substantive sentence can be reduced to the

period of pre-trial detention by maintaining the

fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence. Hence,

ordered accordingly.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand CRL.REV.PET NO. 4376 OF 2006

allowed in part accordingly.

The service rendered by the learned Amicus

Curiae Adv.Sri.Anooj J. and the assistance given

by him is placed on record with high

appreciation.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV