BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01/10/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.(MD).No.681 of 2007, Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.692 to 695 of 2007 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 R.Mayee alias Mayakrishnan ... Petitioner in all the petitions Vs The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondent in all the petitions Prayer Petitions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment made in Crl.A.No.40 of 2007, 43 of 2007, 39 of 2007, 41 of 2007 and 42 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 06.07.2007 against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.130 of 2004, 133 of 2004, 129 of 2007, 131 of 2007 and 132 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti, dated 19.02.2007. !For Petitioner ... Mr.D.Muruganantham ^For Respondent ... Mr.Siva.Ayyappan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 :ORDER
These Criminal Revision Cases are focussed to set aside the judgment made
in Crl.A.No.40 of 2007, 43 of 2007, 39 of 2007, 41 of 2007 and 42 of 2007 on the
file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 06.07.2007
against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.Nos.130 of 2004, 133 of 2004,
129 of 2007, 131 of 2007 and 132 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti, dated 19.02.2007.
2. The nut-shell facts would run thus:
The police registered five cases of theft relating to 3 H.P motors and in
the course of investigation, they arrested the accused and roped him in all
those cases and after investigation, the police laid the respective police
reports which were taken on file as C.C.Nos. 130 of 2004, 133 of 2004, 129 of
2007, 131 of 2007 and 132 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.2, Usilampatti. After conducing trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the
accused for those offences and imposed sentences of eight months rigorous
imprisonment in each case and ordered the sentences to run concurrently and a
fine of Rs.1,000/- in each case was also imposed.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the order of the learned
Magistrate, appeals were filed. The appellate Court confirmed the convictions
recorded by the trial Court, but reduced the sentence from eight months to six
months in each case and ordered those sentences to run concurrently.
4. Being aggrieved by, such concurrent findings of the Courts below, these
Criminal Revision Cases are focussed on the main grounds that both the Courts
below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and the police had chosen to
rope him purely for the purpose of clearing up the blotter as the police had
five theft cases pending with them as under the caption unknown accused.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that both
the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and the accused was caught
red-handed with one 3 H.P motor and in pursuance of his confession, the other
similar motors were recovered.
6. In the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
would pray that the sentence might be reduced and that the petitioner would be
satisfied with such reduction.
7. Perused the records.
8. Both the Courts below based on evidence so to say, the arrest of the
accused with 3 H.P motors and recovery of similar such motors in pursuance of
his confession as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, recorded the
conviction and imposed such sentences. The appellate Court also confirmed the
convictions recorded and sentences imposed by the trial Court.
9. It is a trite proposition of law that while this Court exercising the
revisional powers, cannot sit in judgment over the findings of facts by both the
Courts below. However, if any finding is perverse, certainly that would attract
the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In this case, I do not come across
with any perversity in the finding on the part of both the Courts below and no
interference of this Court is required.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of
this Court to the fact that the petitioner at that time, was only 25 years old
and plead that the petitioner happened to be the first offender and leniency
could have been shown by the Courts below. I could see considerable force in
the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
11. In my considered opinion, the trial Court should have pondered over
the idea of applying the Probation of Offenders Act and for reasons to be
recorded, they should have refrained from invoking the said act. Presumably by
taking into consideration that the accused is having as many as five cases, they
might have thought of not invoking such facility of probation.
12. Be that as it may, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by
both the Courts below appears to be an appropriate punishment for the accused as
he indulged in successive thefts and in such a case, I do not want to interfere
with such awarding of substantive sentence of imprisonment. However, I am of
the view that awarding of six months rigorous imprisonment for such a boy of 25
years, would not be justified and it could be reduced to three months rigorous
imprisonment in each case which shall run concurrently. The fine amount shall
remain in tact.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are partly allowed and the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the
petitioner by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in
Crl.A.Nos.40 of 2007, 43 of 2007, 39 of 2007, 41 of 2007 and 42 of 2007, on the
file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated
06.07.2007, are modified and reduced to a period of three months rigorous
imprisonment which shall run concurrently and the fine imposed shall remain in
tact. Inform telegraphically the jail authorities the result in all these
criminal revision cases and they shall count the period of pre-
trial/investigation detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C and adjust it towards the
imprisonment. Had he completed the period of three months by this date, he
shall be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection
with any other case. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
rsb
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Sedapatti Police Station,
Madurai District.
2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.