IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1368 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.612/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC.1171/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM -------------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SALI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, MALIYEKKAL VEEDU, UPPUKANDAM KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS SRI.A.H.NAJMAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1368 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of June 2009 ORDER Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam in C.C.No.1171 of 2003 for offence punishable under Sec.379 of the Penal Code. Case is that on 02-05-07 while petitioner was working as a cleaner in a bus in which PW1 was travelling, he snatched her gold chain while she was alighting from the bus through the front door. Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of Rs.3,000/-. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence as simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. 2. PW1 is owner of the gold chain (MO-1) allegedly stolen. She stated that while she was alighting from the bus she lost the gold chain and identified the same as MO-1. She however did not implicate the petitioner. PW2 is the registered owner of the bus. He also did not Crl.R.P.No.1368 of 2009 2 support the prosecution. PW3 is a gold smith working in M/s. K.P Varkey and Sons at Kothamangalam. According to the prosecution, petitioner sold MO1 to PW3 for consideration. PW3 admitted that petitioner sold MO-1 to him for Rs.10,000/- and that later he produced MO-1 before the police who seized it as per Ext.P1, mahazar. In the later stage of the cross examination PW3 exhonerated the petitioner. Ext.P2 and P2(a) are marked portions in his previous statement. PWs.4 and 5 are salesman and goldsmith, respectively in M/s.K.P Varkey and Sons. They stated that PW3 produced MO1, gold chain before police who seized as per Ext.P1. According to PW4, one person had sold MO-1 to PW3 and at that time petitioner was also present in the shop. PW6, Sub Inspector questioned petitioner in Crime No.211 of 2001 and on the information given by the petitioner and as lead by him, PW.6 came to PW3 along with the petitioner. PW3 produced MO-1 the gold chain which PW6 seized as per PW.1. 3. It is argued by learned counsel that there is no reliable evidence to prove the involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. According to learned counsel PWs.1 and 3 have not support the Crl.R.P.No.1368 of 2009 3 prosecution. 4. It is true that resiling from her statement to the police PW1 did not implicate petitioner in the incident but the fact of PW1 loosing MO1 while she was alighting from the bus is stated by her. Though at a later stage he resiled, PW.3 hasPW3 also admitted that he purchased the gold chain from petitioner. Seizure of gold chain produced by PW3 is proved by the evidence PWs.3 to 6 and Ext.P1. Thus there is sufficient evidence to show that petitioner was in possession of the gold chain which PW1 lost. It is based on that evidence the courts found petitioner guilty . There is little reason to interfere. 5. So far as sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned learned counsel submitted that petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case and that he is a bachelor. Appellate court modified the sentence as simple imprisonment for one month. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case, I am satisfied that fine of Rs.3000/- is sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly this revision is allowed to the following extent: Crl.R.P.No.1368 of 2009 4 Sentence imposed on the petitioner is modified as fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months'. Petitioner is granted two months' time from today to deposit the fine in the trial court. In case of failure to pay fine within the said time petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-08-09 to receive the default sentence. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/