IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 156 of 1998()
1. KRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :11/07/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.156 of 1998
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.235/92
in the court of JFCM, Chittoor with respect to the offence under
Section 379 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that on
5.3.1992, at about 2.30 a.m., the accused in furtherance of the
common intention committed theft of 480 mtrs. of L.T. line
aluminum wire valued at Rs.4,512/- from the electric post.
2. The accused was found guilty and sentenced to
undergo S.I., for one year. Only A1 has pursued the matter in
appeal and in the revision.
3. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the
person from whom Section 27 recovery was effected has not
been examined; so also is the witness who attested the seizure
mahazar. i.e., Ext. P3. I find that the above contention has no
merits as PW11, the Sub Inspector who effected the recovery has
testified as to the fact of recovery. The person from whose
possession recovery was effected and the witness to the mahazar
CRRP156/98 Page numbers
were cited as witnesses but could not be examined. The fact that
the above persons could not be examined is no reason to hold
that the evidence of PW11 is not sufficient to prove the recovery.
There is no case that the version of PW11 is vitiated by any
infirmities. In the circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere
in the concurrent findings of the courts below that the accused is
guilty of the offences alleged.
4. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for
leniency pointing out that the incident has taken place in the
year 1992 and that 15 years have elapsed since the
commencement of the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that
the accused is right now aged 58 years. In the circumstances
and considering the long delay, the sentence is modified to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl