Skip to content


Kunjali Meeran Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Petn. No. 473 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Ker285; 1960CriLJ1212
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 65; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - 561A
AppellantKunjali Meeran
RespondentState of Kerala
Appellant Advocate K.V. Kuriakose, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePublic Prosecutor
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - this was clearly the result of a mistake and the failure to notice section 65, i......is one punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to rs. 500/ (see section 27 of t. c. forest act --act iii of 1952). the conviction is also under that section. the sentence awarded is one of fine to the extent of rs. 250/. in case of default, the alternative sentence of imprisonment provided for appears to have contravened the limitation imposed by section 65 of the i. p. c. under that section the alternative term of imprisonment should not exceed one-fourth of the sentence of imprisonment permissible for the offence. that term is only six months and hence one-fourth of that alone could be the limit of the alternative sentence. what was actually provided for in the judgment is three months. this was clearly the result of a.....
Judgment:

Sankaran, C.J.

1. The offence with which the petitioner accused was charged is one punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/ (See Section 27 of T. C. Forest Act --Act III of 1952). The conviction is also under that section. The sentence awarded is one of fine to the extent of Rs. 250/. In case of default, the alternative sentence of Imprisonment provided for appears to have contravened the limitation imposed by Section 65 of the I. P. C. Under that section the alternative term of imprisonment should not exceed one-fourth of the sentence of imprisonment permissible for the offence. That term is only six months and hence one-fourth of that alone could be the limit of the alternative sentence. What was actually provided for in the judgment is three months. This was clearly the result of a mistake and the failure to notice Section 65, I. P. C.

This mistake can be rectified by invoking Section 561-A of the Cr. P. C.

2. In the result this petition is allowed and the final portion of the judgment in the case is modified by limiting the alternative sentence of imprisonment in default of fine to a period of 45 days.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //