IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1194 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.867/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.132/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- PRADEEP @ KANNAN, S/O.SASI, CONVICT NO.6267, CENTRAL JAIL, AT VIYYUR, THRISSUR – 680 010. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASOKAN, STATE BRIEF. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1194 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 22nd Day of July, 2010 ORDER This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the accused who is undergoing imprisonment, in pursuance of the judgment dated 25-9-2007 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry in C.C.No.132/2007 and the judgment dated 17.3.2008 in Crl.A.No.867/2007 of the court of Sessions Judge, Thrissur, by which he is convicted and sentenced under section 379 IPC. 2. The above case was instituted based upon a police report in crime No. 28/2007 of Wadakkanchery Police Station for the offence under section 379 IPC. According to the prosecution, the accused had committed the above offence in the night of 21.1.2007 by stealthily removing the motor cycle bearing registration No. KL 8V-8644. As this Crl.R.P. is preferred from the jail, this court appointed Smt. Dhanya P.Asokan as State Brief to prosecute the revision petition on behalf of the revision petitioner. Crl.R.P. No.1194/2009 -:2:- 3. Thus I have heard Smt.Dhanya P.Ashokan, the learned counsel appointed as State Brief, appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 6 and Ext.P1 series to Ext.P5 documents to substantiate the case against the revision petitioner. On going through the materials and evidence on record, it can be seen that crime No.28/2007 of Wadakkancherry police station was registered for the offence under section 379 IPC on the basis of Ext.P1 FI Statement given by PW1 before PW6, the S.I of police. Ext.P1(a) is the F.I.R. The information is to the effect that on 20.1.2007 in the midnight, a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 8V-8644 belonging to the complainant was seen stolen from his possession and subsequently, PW1 was called to the police station on 22.1.2007 and he had identified his motor cycle but the number plates were not seen affixed on it. But he got the custody of the vehicle as per Ext.P2 kychit. PW2 is an attester to Ext.P3 seizure mahazar by which the vehicle was Crl.R.P. No.1194/2009 -:3:- seized from the possession of the accused on his arrest. PW4 is the witness to the recovery mahazar Ext.P3 by which the police seized the number plates, coins and chopper from the house of the accused. PW6 is the S.I. of Police of Wadakkancherry police station who deposed that on getting Ext.P1 FIS he went to the seen of occurrence and prepared the scene mahazar and he further deposed that on 22.1.2007 at 8.p.m. while he was inspecting vehicles on the road he saw the accused coming by riding on a motor cycle without any number plate. It is the further deposition of PW6 that though he gave signal to the accused to stop it, he did not stop the vehicle and thus on chasing the motor cycle, PW6 intercepted the accused and questioned him and through such interrogation, it was revealed that the motor cycle which he was riding is the one belonged to PW1. From the evidence it is clear that the motor cycle in question was recovered from the possession of the accused and as per Ext.P3 mahazar, certain other articles which mentioned earlier recovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is on the Crl.R.P. No.1194/2009 -:4:- basis of the evidence and materials, the trial court as well as the lower appellate Court came into a conclusion that the accused is guilty under section 379 of IPC. I find no reason to interfere with the above concurrent findings of the courts below. Regarding the sentence, it can be seen that only two years sentence is awarded though the records show that the revision petitioner is a habitual offender involved in other cases of theft. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 5. In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition. and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the revision Petitioner had already undergone the period of imprisonment. The above submission appears to be correct as per the letter furnished by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur. In the present case the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and set off of 245 days was allowed. As per the above report of the Superintendent, the Crl.R.P. No.1194/2009 -:5:- revision petitioner is entitled to get released from jail on 20.3.2010 even without the remission period. If the petitioner is already undergone the period of sentence, he is entitled to get released from jail, if he is not required in any other case. 7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and discussions and subject to the above observation, this Crl. R.P is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P. No.1194/2009 -:6:-