IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1031 of 2002()
1. PAUL VARGHESE, SPO.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002
`````````````````
Dated: 20-02-2009
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C.
the petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No. 40 of 1996 on
the file of the J.F.C.M., Palai for an offence punishable under
Section 397 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the
sentence passed concurrently against him for the said offence.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 23-7-1995 at about 7.30 a.m. the accused committed
thect of a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. K.L.5/D 2666
belonging to P.W.6 and which was used by P.W.1. The theft was
from the road on the southern side of Kuravilangad Forane Church.
The vehicle was valued at Rs. 34,000/-. The accused has thereby
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 379 I.P.C.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed
against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the
prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its
Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002 -:2:-
case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1
to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained
his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called
upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 10-3-1998 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 379 I.P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for four months. On appeal
preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court as
Crl.Appeal No. 59 of 1999 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as per
judgment dated, 29th June 2002 dismissed the appeal confirming
the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision
petitioner. Hence, this Revision.
6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction
entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction
Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002 -:3:-
has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful
evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this
Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said
conviction which is accordingly confirmed.
7. What now survives for consideration is the question as
to whether the benevolent provisions of the Probation of
Offenders’ Act, 1958 are liable to be extended to the petitioner or
whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner should be
confirmed or modified. This Court called for a report from the
District Probation Officer, Movvattupuzha. The District Probation
Officer, Moovattupuzha in his report has stated that the petitioner
was aged below 19 years on the date of occurrence, that there is
no previous conviction against the petitioner, that he is amenable
to discipline, that and particularly that he is removing, he has
studied up to pre-degree and later had attended a course on
automobile engineering , hotel management without completing
the same but he had passed a course on Computer Graphics and
Designing and is at present employed at Printers Offset Press,
Kolenchery as Computer Graphic Designer getting a monthly salary
of Rs. 4500/- per month.
Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002 -:4:-
8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner submitted that he is desirous of going abroad since one
of his eleder brothers is employed at Abudabi. This fact is made
mention of in the report of the Probation Officer. Under these
circumstance, I am inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on
probation by invoking the provision under Sec. 4 (1) of the
Probation of Offenders’ Act. The petitioner shall be released on
probation for a petiod of one year under Sec. 4 (1) of the Probation
of Offenders Act. He shall appear before the trial court on 13-3-
2009 for executing the bond. The learned Magistrate shall ensure
that the bond executed by the petitioner does not prevent him from
going abroad in search of employment as aforesaid.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 20th day of Feb.2009.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002 -:5:-
ani.
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
““““““““`
Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002
““““““““`
Dated: 20-02-2009
O R D E R