Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 751 (KER)

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

2010-09-30

V.K.MOHANAN

body2010
ORDER : Crl.R.P.No.2837 of 2010 Admit. Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent. Crl.M.A.No. 9143 of 2010 Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent. This is an application filed with a prayer to suspend the order of conviction imposed against the petitioner herein as per the judgment dated 30.1.2008 in C.C.No.1225 of 2002 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi and confirmed as per the judgment dated 11.6.2010 in Crl.A.No. 171 of 2008 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.218 of 2002 of Cusba Police Station, Palluruthi for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,448,353 read with 149 I.P.C. The Police after investigation filed a report in the above crime based upon which cognisance was taken for the above offences by the trial court and instituted C.C.No.1225 of 2002. Finally, the trial court found that all the accused are guilty of the offences under Section 448 of I.P.C. and accordingly, the accused, including the petitioner, are convicted under Sections 143,147 and 353 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they were sentenced also. 3. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, by the above judgment, confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was modified. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein preferred the above Crl.RP, Along with the Crl.R.P. the petitioner now preferred the above petition with a prayer to suspend the conviction, which is under challenge in the above Crl.R.P. 4. In the petition, it is stated that on an evaluation of the available evidence and the material, it could be seen that the charge levelled against the petitioner and the allegations of prosecution are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there are several other legal grounds to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence. I am not proposed to consider the above conviction at this stage. 5. However, it is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is proposed to file his nomination to contest in the ensuing election to the local body viz., the Cochin Corporation. I am not proposed to consider the above conviction at this stage. 5. However, it is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is proposed to file his nomination to contest in the ensuing election to the local body viz., the Cochin Corporation. It is also the apprehension of the petitioner that as the petitioner is involved in a crime, though the conviction and sentence are challenged finally before this Court, there is every likelihood of an objection at the instance of the petitioner's rival political group and on the basis of which, there is every possibility for rejecting his nomination unless the order of conviction is suspended. 6. I have heard Sri C.P. Udayabhanu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the judgments of the courts below. 7. On such perusal of the available materials, it appears that even according to the prosecution case, the petitioner was one among several persons, who were conducting agitation against the hike of Electricity charges and thus, he was implicated in the crime. From the averments contained in the Crl.R.P., it appears that he is involved in the crime because of his political and social activities. Under the abvoe circumstances, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to suspend the order of conviction imposed against the petitioner by the courts below, otherwise, the petitioner's valuable right to contest in the ensuing election will be defeated and the irreparable injury and hardship, if any, to the petitioner cannot be compensated. In the light of the dictum laid down in the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ravikant.S.Patil v. Sarvabhouma S.Bagali [ 2007(1) KLT 685 (SC)], according to me, it is a fit case to suspend the order of conviction imposed against the revision petitioner. In the result, the order of conviction imposed against the revision petitioner by the judgment dated 30.1.2008 in C.C.No.1225 of 2002 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi and confirmed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 11.6.2010 in Crl.A. No. 171 of 2008 by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam is suspended, till the disposal of Crl.R.P.No.2837of 2010.