High Court Kerala High Court

Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 501 of 1999(C)



1. SURESH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :22/10/2007

 O R D E R
                       K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
                  ---------------------------------------------
                      Crl.R.P.No.501 of 1999
                  ---------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007



                                O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.54/91

in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry

with respect to the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 461

read with Section 34 IPC and stands convicted and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 457 IPC

and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 380 IPC on

the allegation that he along with the second accused on

17.6.1990 at about 2 a.m. in the night broke open the door of the

house of the defacto complainant and committed theft of a gold

ring and a V.C.P. The case of the co-accused was disposed of by

this court confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence.

The sentence as modified for the offence under Section 457 IPC

is to undergo R.I. for one year and for the offence under Section

380 IPC is reduced to R.I. for six months.

2. The counsel for the revision petitioner has only sought

for modification of the sentence in terms of the judgment in

CRRP501/1999 2

Crl.R.P.No.483/99 in the revision filed by the second accused.

He has also sought for applying Section 427 Crl.P.C. It is

pointed out that he was arrested on 31.1.1991 and 5 cases were

registered against him and false recoveries were made and

charge sheets filed in C.C.No.50/91 with respect to the offences

under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC and in

other cases. He stands convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for six months as modified by this court in view of the fact that

16 years have elapsed since the date of the commencement of

the proceedings. In C.C.No.52/91 also for the offence under

Section 379 IPC he stands convicted and sentenced to undergo

R.I. for a period of one year and the appeal and the revision

petition is dismissed. In C.C.No.53/91 and stands convicted and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year with respect

to the offence under Section 457 IPC and R.I. for six months for

the offence under Section 379 IPC with direction that the

sentences shall run concurrently. In C.C.No.55/91 the accused/

petitioner was convicted by the courts below and in revision this

court acquitted the accused/petitioner. It is submitted that he

has undergone pretrial detention for a period from 26.10.1990 to

CRRP501/1999 3

15.3.1991. Further from 16.7.2007 he is undergoing

imprisonment. He has sought for direction to have the sentences

in the above cases along with the sentence sought to be revised

in the present case to run concurrently.

3. In the circumstances, I find that the plea of the

revision petitioner to have the sentence reduced to R.I. for six

months for the offence under Section 457 IPC and 380 IPC is to

be allowed as the sentence imposed on the co-accused has been

reduced to six months each as per the order of this court in

Crl.R.P.No.483/99. In the circumstances, the sentence imposed

on the accused herewith is modified to R.I. for six months each

for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The same shall

run concurrently.

4. The Division Bench of this court in Subrahmanian

vs. State of Kerala (1983(KLT452)) has examined in detail the

circumstances in which Section 427 can be invoked and invoked

the same in a similar situation wherein the petitioner therein

was sentenced for the offence under Sections 457 and 379 read

with Section 34 IPC. I find that it is not necessary to examine

the above aspects in detail as the case of the petitioner herein is

CRRP501/1999 4

similar to that of the petitioner in Subrahmanian’s case (op. cit.).

Hence, it is hereby ordered that the sentences imposed on the

petitioner in C.C.Nos. 50/91, 52/91, 53/91 and in the instant case

i.e., C.C.No.54/91 shall be undergone concurrently. He will also

be entitled for set off.

The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE

csl