IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2215 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.295/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE CC.325/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ NARAYANAN, C.NO.4029 CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.G.G.MANOJ(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2215 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 23-06-2008 ORDER In this Revision filed from the Central Prison, Kannur, the Revsiion Petitioner who was the first accused in C.C. 325 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M.II, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sec. 457 and 380 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 29-08- 2000 the two accused persons broke open the lock of the office room of S.K.G.M. A.U.P. School at Kumbalapalli in Karindalam Village and committed theft of MO1 amplifier and MO2 sound box kept in the office room and that accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. 3. Since the 2nd accused was absconding, the Revision Petitioner alone faced trial. 4. 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 case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and -:2:- got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7 and 2 material objects as MOs 1 and 2. 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 23-7-2004 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Sec. 457 I.P.C. and to simple imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Sec. 380 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court (Adhoc III) , Kasaragod, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 25- 05-2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. The occurrence took place in the night of 29-8-2000. On -:3:- 30-8-2000 when P.W.1 who is the headmaster of the said school came to open the school he found the lock forced open and broken. After examining the office room, the amplifier, sound box and mike set were found missing. The lock of the almirah kept in the office was also broken. He, therefore, lodged a complaint before the S.H.O., Neeleswaram. He also intimated the matter to the A.E.O. On 30-1-2000, P.W.4 who was the Sub Inspector of Police Vellarikundu and his party while on night patrol duty, saw A1 and A2 carrying two gunny bags at Plathadam junction under suspicious circumstances at about 3.20 p.m. Seeing the police jeep both of them tried to make good their escape. They were soon apprehended by the police. When questioned about their presence there and about the contents of the gunny bag both of them gave prevaricatory answers. So, P.W.4 opened the bag to find MO1 amplifier and MO2 sound box. MO1 was with A1 and MO2 was with A2. On the bona fide belief that they were stollen articles P.W4 registered Ext.P3 FIR after seizing the properties under Ext.P1 (a) seizure mahazar. The accused were arrested and taken to the Neeleswaram Police Station from where Crime No. 120 of 2001 was registered. 7. Both P.W.1 the headmaster and P.W.3 the teacher of SK.G.M. A.U.P. School have identified that MOs 1 and 2 as the amplifier and sound box which were seized from A1 and A2 -:4:- respectively. 8. Adv. Sri. G.G. Manoj the learned counsel who defended the revision petitioner on State Brief contended that there was delay in lodging the complaint But on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the delay of a few hours in lodging the complaint is fatal to the prosecution. The revision petitioner who was carrying MO1 amplifier in a gunny bag had no satisfactory explanation for his possession of the same. P.Ws 1 and 3 had identified the same as one of the gadgets stolen from the school. The conviction was rightly entered against the revision petitioner. 9. The sentence imposed also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionately harsh having regard to the daring manner in which the offence was committed. I, therefore, did not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction entered and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. In the result, this Revision is dismissed . Dated this the 24th day of June 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. -:5:- V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.