IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1823 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.552/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE CC.371/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:- ------------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, S/O.THUPPRANKUTTY, PALLIYARAKKAL HOUSE, MORAYOOR AMSOM, AREEMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:- ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1823 of 2009 =================== Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the 3rd accused in C.C. No.371 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 r/w Section 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 09.05.2004, at about 7.30 p.m., A1 and A2 dishonestly removed the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-11-R-2946 parked by PW1 near the Lions Park, Beach Road, Kozhikode after committing theft of the vehicle. A1 and A2 handed over the same to the 3rd accused (revision petitioner) who received the same knowing it to be a stolen property. Thus, accused persons 1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 379 Crl. R.P. No. 1823/2009 -:2:- r/w Section 34 IPC. The 3rd accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. 3. Since the 1st accused was a juvenile, his case was separated from the above C.C case. A2 and A3 alone stood trial before the Magistrate. 4. On A2 and A3 pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7. 5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 6. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 31.05.2008 found A2 and A3 guilty of the respective offences charged against them. The revision petitioner who was Crl. R.P. No. 1823/2009 -:3:- A3, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months under Section 411 r/w Section 34 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-I), Kozhikode as per judgment dated 24.03.2009 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 7. Even though 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 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. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question as to whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is legal and proper. This Court had called for a report from the District Probation Officer, Manjeri. In the report dated 12.03.2010, the District Probation Officer has reported as Crl. R.P. No. 1823/2009 -:4:- follows:- The revision petitioner was running a two wheeler centre at Morayoor town. He used to repair two wheelers for the purpose of second sale. Even though he is involved in four theft cases registered by the Nilambur police and one case registered by the Nadakkavu police, he really fears punishment and he was having a feeling of remorse for the past. His neighbours have good opinion about him. Noticing the nature of the present case in which he had totally denied his involvement, the circumstances of the case and the character of the petitioner, the Probation Officer is of the view that there is much scope of character modification and social reintegration and this is a fit case for invoking the benevolent provision of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. 9. After considering the report of the District Probation Officer, I am of the view that instead of passing a sentence immediately on the petitioner, he could be released on probation under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with a direction for supervision by the District Probation Officer for a period of three years. The petitioner shall, therefore, report Crl. R.P. No. 1823/2009 -:5:- before the trial court on 09.04.2010 for executing the necessary bond before the Magistrate. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction but releasing the petitioner on probation for a period of three years and subject to such conditions including supervision by the Probation Officer as may be imposed by the Magistrate. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv