IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1158 of 2000() ------------------------------ CRA.38/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.227/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- RAMADAS, S/O PUNNOPARAMBIL RAMAKRISHNAN, NEAR SOUTH RAILWAY GATE, POTTOR DESOM, PALAYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING C.I. OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.1158/2000 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The accused in C.C.No.227/97 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chavakkad, who was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC is the petitioner herein. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 10.2.1997, at about 3.00 a.m, PW6, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur East police station, along with PW1 and others, found the accused in suspicious circumstances at Thekkemadam road, while they were on patrol duty. PW6 questioned the accused and he was found to be in possession of MO1, a portable computer and other accessories, MOs 2 to 4, including a calculator. On interrogation, they came to know that the articles were stolen from Guruvayoor on 31.12.1996. On collecting information, intimation was given to PW2, who came and identified the articles. The case was then transferred to Guruvayoor police station. Investigation was conducted by PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, Crl.R.P.1158/2000 2 Guruvayoor, and charge sheet was laid. PWs1 to 6 were examined by the prosecution. Statement of the accused was taken under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The trial Court found that the recovery and seizure of articles were effected properly. Accused was not able to explain the possession of these articles, which included a portable computer that was not common in those times. PW2 had identified the articles. Articles were therefore, stolen. Possession could not be explained. Court below therefore, came to the conclusion that the accused is responsible for the theft of the articles and he was convicted under Section 379 of the Code. On an elaborate re-appreciation of the evidence, the appellate Court agreed with the trial Court and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the Revision. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P1 mahazar is alleged to have been prepared by CW4, Crl.R.P.1158/2000 3 one Abdul Jabbar, police constable. He was not examined. But it is seen to have been written by PW6, the Circle Inspector of Police. The discrepancy had not been explained by the prosecution. 6. I do not find any substance in the contention. PW6, the Circle Inspector of Police was admittedly heading the patrol party on 10.2.1997. CW4, Abdul Jabbar, the police constable, was also part of the patrol party. This is spoken to by PW6, the C.I. of police and PW1, the Head Constable who was also part of the patrol party. Mahazar would have been written by a police constable, but as per the directions of the C.I. of police and it is therefore, the C.I. of police will have to be considered as having drawn up the same. 7. It is then contended that there are no independent witnesses who had witnessed the seizure and recovery of the alleged stolen articles. It is the case of the prosecution that the seizure was effected at 3.00 a.m. Obviously it will be difficult to get hold of independent witnesses at that hour. The question is whether the evidence tendered by the prosecution as regards the seizure, suffers from any Crl.R.P.1158/2000 4 discrepancy. I have gone through the evidence and I do not find any serious discrepancy. The Courts below also have accepted the same. 8. PW2 has identified the articles. PW5 has spoken about the investigation at the Guruvayoor police station. There was only a feeble suggestion on behalf of the accused that the arrest was actually effected on 5.2.1999. No complaint is seen to have been urged regarding such arrest at any point of time. In these circumstances, I find it difficult to accept the said suggestion made on behalf of the accused; nor were the Courts below persuaded to accept the same. 9. Seizure of the articles from the accused at a strange hour of 3.00 a.m has been proved by the prosecution. Accused has not been able to explain how he came into possession of the same. Ownership of the articles has been proved by PW2. There was not even a suggestion to PW2 that he is not the owner of the articles. Prosecution has been able to establish that the accused was found in possession of the stolen articles and that they were recovered from him Crl.R.P.1158/2000 5 at 3.00 a.m on 10.2.1997. I am therefore, of the view that the Courts below have come to the correct conclusion that the accused is guilty of the ofence under Section 379 of the Code. I do not find any infirmity in the conviction and sentence of the accused, for the offence under Section 379. Criminal Revision Petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs