IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1031 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.59/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.40/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------ PAUL VARGHESE, SPO.VARGHESE, AYYAMMATHATHIL VEEDU, PIRAMADOM KARA, OONAKKOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR SRI.K.B.DAYAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANNOOR, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P. No. 1031 0f 2002 C.M.P. No. 11817 of 2003 and Crl. M.A.No. 7416 of 2003 Dismissed. Crl.M.P. No. 12342 of 2008 and Crl.M.P. No. 5541 of 2002 in Crl.R.P. No. 1031 of 2002 Closed Sd/- V. Ramkumar, Judge. 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