High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/2881/2009dismissed as not pressed

C.K.Jayakumar v. Secretary, Kuttippuram Grama Panchayat

2015-09-23Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2881 of 2009 ( ) --------------------------------- JUDGMENT IN CRA 444/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI DATED 23-05-2008 JUDGMENT IN ST 970/2004 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TIRUR DATED 26-10-2006 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::

----------------------------- C.K.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KANDU, CHERATTUKUNNU, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT::

------------------------------------

1. SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S.SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2881 of 2009 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)'S EXHIBITS:

---------------------- ANNEXURE A: AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.10.2010 EXECUTED BY THE CLERK OF THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER AT THE LOWER COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 2881 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

ORDER

When this matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petition is not pressed. A memo in this regard has been also filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Suffice it to say that, having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the concurrent finding of the courts below that the revision petitioner has committed the offence under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act r/w Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Taxation and Appeal). The compensation awarded by the courts below is also not excessive.

In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and the order of compensation

Crl. R.P. No. 2881 of 2009 -2passed by the courts below.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl.