IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 89 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO.567/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2675/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KANNAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, VADAKKUMPURAM PERINGOTTUKURUSSY, PALAKKAD. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ATHANKUTTY, ETTADI, PERUNGOTTYKURUSSY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYI POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor who appeared for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment of the Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.567 of 2006 confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 48(c) of the Kerala Police Act and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for three months. Case is that on 2.8.2004 at about 3.00 p.m. petitioners were found by PW1, Sub Inspector who was on night patrol duty, in a suspicious manner with house breaking implements in front of a shop in AMVB complex. On seeing the police party petitioners tried to escape in a motor cycle kept nearby but they were caught by PW1 and party. On questioning petitioners were not able to give satisfactory explanation for their presence at the relevant place and time with the house breaking implements. Thereon suspecting that it was for the purpose of committing theft petitioners were arrested and the implements along with motor cycle were seized as per Ext.P1. PW1 registered case against the petitioners as per Ext.P2. PW2 is a police constable who was in the patrol party of PW1 at the relevant time. PWs 1 and 2 have given evidence regarding the incident. PWs 1 and 2 identified MOs 1 to 4. PW3 is an attestor in Ext.P3, mahazar prepared by PW4. It is Crl.R.P.No.89/2009 2 contended by learned counsel that petitioners are coolie workers and with their implements they were standing at the place of occurrence but they were falsely arrested. This contention is disproved by the facts disclosed in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the nature of the implements the petitioners are proved to have been carrying at the relevant time. It is also important to note that petitioners had no such explanation when they were questioned and arrested by PW1. Courts below considered the evidence and found that petitioners committed offence punishable under Section 48(c) of the Kerala Police Act. There is little reason to interfere with the conviction. 3. On the question of sentence, the report of the Additional Probation Officer, Palakkad was called for. The Additional Probation Officer in his report has stated that petitioners have poor financial background and that they are now leading a normal life. He also reported that petitioners are first offenders. He reports that they are leading a calm and reformed life at present. It is the opinion of the Additional Probation Officer that petitioners could be corrected and controlled to a crime free life. Crl.R.P.No.89/2009 3 4. In the light of the above report I do not think it necessary to send the petitioners to jail at this stage and get mingled with the hardened criminals who are undergoing imprisonment. I am persuaded to give them an opportunity to correct themselves and lead a crime free life. In the facts and circumstances of this case including the nature of the offence and character of the petitioners as reported by the Additional Probation Officer, I consider it expedient to release the petitioners on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. Resultantly revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines: i. Sentence imposed on the petitioners is set aside and instead, they are released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond. ii. Petitioners shall within two weeks from today execute bond as referred to in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the trial court for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of that court undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period of two years and to receive the sentence as and when called for. Crl.R.P.No.89/2009 4 iii. Petitioners shall be under the supervision of the Additional Probation Officer, Palakkad for the said period of two years. The trial court shall issue necessary orders to the Additional Probation Officer, Palakkad for that purpose. Crl.M.A.No.274 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks