IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 802 of 2000() --------------------------------------- CRA.116/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.576/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- KANNAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, CHUNGATH VEEDU, KANNALLUR, CHITTILANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKITESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 802 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008. ORDER Petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC along with another, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alathur. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged against him, while acquitting the first accused. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 457 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 380 IPC. The above order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. 2. It is contended by Sri.Venkitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have committed serious illegality in overlooking the inordinate delay of more than 7 months in lodging the FIR in the case. According to the prosecution, petitioner had allegedly committed theft of a blanket and a clock from the residence of Pw.1 at about 2 a.m. on November 8, 1993. Admittedly the crime was registered by the Police in this regard only on June 2, 1994. Ext.P3 is stated to be the FIR registered by the Police in this connection. Pw.1 deposed before the court that he was not in station at the time when the alleged crime was committed at his residence. A wall clock, a blanket, some sarees and vessels were stolen from his residence. Pw.1 identified the clock and blanket which were recovered by the Police under Section 27 of the Crl.RP.802/2000 2 Evidence act, pursuant to the information given by the petitioner. The clock and blanket were marked as M.O.1 and 2 respectively. Pws.2 and 4 were attestors to the scene mahazar and seizure mahazar respectively. Pw.4 stated that he had witnessed recovery of the wall clock effected by the Police from the house of the accused on August 26, 1994. He also asserted that he had signed the seizure mahazar at the residence of the petitioner. Pws.5, 6 and 7 were the Police officials who spoke about the process of investigation like arrest of the accused, recovery of the stolen articles etc. 3. It is true that there was delay in lodging the FIR. But the explanation given by Pw.1 was found to be totally satisfactory by the courts below which had considered the entire materials available on record meticulously. I have been taken through the depositions of the witnesses and other relevant documents. The material piece of evidence on the side of the prosecution was the recovery effected by the Police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of Pw.4 will undoubtedly show that recovery was effected from the residence of the petitioner pursuant to the information furnished by him. More importantly M.O.1 and 2 were identified by Pw.1. I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding of guilty entered by the courts below. 4. However having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances I am of the view that some leniency can be shown to the petitioner in the matter of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 380 Crl.RP.802/2000 3 IPC, particularly since the stolen articles were only a blanket and a clock. Therefore in supercession of the sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under Section 380 IPC, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence imposed on the petitioner under section 457 IPC is retained. The sentences shall run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 shall also be available to the petitioner, if he had been in custody. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.