IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3550 of 2007()
1. JINTO JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH VARKEY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.J.THOMAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :25/03/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Crl. M.C. No. 3550 of 2007
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated: 25-03-2008
ORDER
Petitioner who was the accused in C.C. Nos. 337 , 338, 383
and 384 of 2006 and C.C. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of J.F.C.M.,
Ettumanoor and C.C. 484 of 2006 on the file of J.F.C.M. III,
Kottayam, seeks a direction under Sec. 427 read with Sec. 482
Cr.P.C. that the sentence passed against the petitioner in all the
above six cases shall run concurrently.
2. The petitioner was the common first accused in C.C.
Nos. 337, 338, 383 and 384 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M.,
Ettumanoor. The petitioner was the 2nd accused in C.C. 1 of 2007
on the file of the J.F.C.M. Ettumanoor. He was the first accused
in C.C. 484 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam. All
the above cases were theft cases. The property involved in C.C.
No. 337 of 2006 is a gold chain weighing 1 > sovereigns and
worth Rs. 11000/- snatched from the body of P.W.1 therein
(Annakutty Joseph) while she was walking along the road. The
property involved in C.C. No. 338 of 2006 is a Scorpio Car worth
Rs. 6,00,000/-. The property involved in C.C. No. 383 of 2006 is
a Maruti Car worth Rs. 40,000/-. The property involved in C.C.
No. 384 of 2006 is again a gold chain weighing 16.400 gms worth
Rs. 14,000/- snatched from the body of the first informant in
that case. The property involved in C.C. No. 1 of 2007 is again a
Crl. M.C. 3550 of 2007 -:2:-
gold chain weighing 12.500 grams worn by the woman examined
as P.W.2 in that case. The property involved in C.C. 484 of 2006
is a gold chain owned by the first informant who is another
woman.
3. The claim of the petitioner that he pleaded guilty in all
the aforesaid six criminal cases is a false claim. Annexures I to
6 judgments in the above cases show that the petitioner had
pleaded guilty only in C .C. 338 of 2006 and C.C. 1 of 2007 on
the file of the J.F.C.M. Ettumanoor and C.C. No. 484 of 2006 on
the file of J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam and he did not plead guilty in
the remaining three cases. No doubt, on the assertion made by
the petitioner that he was below the age of 19 years at the time
of occurrence in the aforesaid six cases, this Court called for the
report of the District Probation Officer, Kottayam and as per
report dated 23-3-2008 the District Probation Officer has stated
that he was involved in six criminal cases within a short span of
life , that all the above cases were theft cases, that he was below
the age of 20 years at the time of occurrence in those cases and
that he admitted all the offences. The Probation Officer has also
recommended that the petitioner’s case is a suitable one to be
dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 and that he may be released under Sec. 4(1) and 4(3)
of the said Act. The very fact that the District Probation Officer
has also blindly accepted the statement of the petitioner and his
family members to the effect that the petitioner pleaded guilty in
Crl. M.C. 3550 of 2007 -:3:-
all the cases, shows the non-application of mind by the District
Probation Officer. If the District Probation Officer had cared to
verify the judgments of the trial court it would have been
revealed that the petitioner had pleaded guilty only in three cases
namely C.C. No. 338 of 2006 and C.C. No. 1 of 2007 of J.F.C.M.,
Ettumanoor and C.C. No. 484 of 2006 of J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam.
In all the six cases the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner is simple imprisonment for one year each.
4. In Ammavasal and Anr. v. Sub Inspector of
Police, Valliyannoor – AIR 2000 SC 3544 relied on by the
petitioner the Hon’ble Supreme Court was inclined to invoke Sec.
427 Cr.P.C. for giving concurrence to the accused therein taking
note of the fact that if he was not given the benefit of Sec. 427
Cr.P.C. the convict may have to undergo 28 years in jail. But
that is not the position with regard to the petitioner herein.
5. In M.R. Kuduva v. State of Andhra Pradesh – AIR
2000 SC 568 the Apex court held that when neither the trial
Court nor the High court had exercised jurisdiction under Sec.
427 Cr.P.C. while passing the judgment , the inherent power
under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. could not exercised in an independent
proceeding by the High court for the sole purpose of giving the
benefit of Sec. 427 Cr.P.C.
6. Considering the involvement of the petitioner in six
different crimes which were committed in a daring manner, I am
not inclined to give him the benefit of Sec. 427 Cr.P.C.,
Crl. M.C. 3550 of 2007 -:4:-
particularly when the petitioner is guilty of stating falsehood
before this Court by contending that he had pleaded guilty in
all the six cases.
This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ani/ /true copy/