IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3217 OF 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.267/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.53/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- SURESH, C.NO. 5235 CENTRAL PRISON, VIYOOR, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRINJALAKUDA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3217 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.53 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under section 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 461 of IPC. The sentences were directed to be run consecutively. Revision petitioner was in custody at the time of trial. From jail he challenged the conviction in Crl. Appeal 267/2006 before Sessions Court, Thrissur. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision petition from jail. 2. Learned counsel Advocate Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel considering the evidence on record and concurrent conviction did not challenge the conviction. It CRRP 3217/2007 2 was submitted that learned Magistrate awarded consecutive sentence without showing any reason and the sentence may be directed to be run concurrently. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. The learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. Evidence of PW1 establish that gold ornaments weighing 9 sovereigns were stolen from his house on 25.8.2001. Recovery of MO1 under Ext.P2 on the information furnished by revision petitioner proved by the evidence of PW7, the investigating officer, establish the offences against revision petitioner. Conviction is perfectly legal. Considering the nature of the offences and fact that revision petitioner is involved in other similar cases establish that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under section 380 and 454 of IPC is reasonable. But the direction to run consecutive sentences on the facts of the case is not justifiable. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel, learned Magistrate did not show any reason why the rigorous imprisonment for two years awarded for the offences under section 454 and 380 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under CRRP 3217/2007 3 section 461 of IPC are to run consecutively. Learned Sessions Judge also did not consider that question. Interest of justice does not warrant such a direction. Revision is disposed confirming the conviction and sentences but providing that the sentences shall run concurrently. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-