IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3569 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.441/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY CC.809/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PANCHIYAMMA, W/O.RAMAN KALLAKURACHI, CHINNASELAM. 2. KOLANCHI, W/O.BHAGIRAJAN, KALLAKURUCHI, CHINNASELAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, PAYYANNUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ............................................... Crl.R.P. No.3569 of 2008 ............................................... Dated: 10th February 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioners who are two ladies by name Panchiyamma and Kolanchi were charge-sheeted by the Station House Officer, Payyannur in Crime No. 498 of 2001 of Payyannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 2-11-2001 at about 2 p.m. the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft committed house breaking and entered into the store room attached to the house by name Vattaparamba Illam of the de facto complainant in Ramanthali amsom by forcibly unlatching the door of the said room and committed theft of bronze vessels for the value of Rs. 5,000/- from the said building. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the J.F.C.M. Payyanuur , the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined six witnesses Crl.R.P. No. 3569 of 2008 -:2:- as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked Exts. P1 to P5 and 16 material objects as Mos 1 to 16. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1) (b) with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them m in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 24-6-2005 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Sec. 454 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. For the conviction under Sec. 380 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. Each of the revision petitioners were each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A. No.441 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc-1, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence, this Revision. 6. This Court called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Kannur with regard to the antecedents of the petitioners and the desirability of dealing with them under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Addl. District Probation Officer, Kannur has forwarded detailed reports Crl.R.P. No. 3569 of 2008 -:3:- individually prepared regarding each of the revision petitioners. As per the said report the revision petitioners are first offenders and there is every likelihood of they get reformed if released on probation. He has recommended their release on probation. 7. They seem to have remover over their conduct Considering the report of the District Probation Officer, I am inclined to extent the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be released on probation by the trial court for a period of one year on each of them executing a bond for such amount as the Magistrate may fix . One of the conditions shall be that during the said period of one year the petitioners shall be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer before whom they shall report once in a fortnight. The revision petitioners shall appear before the trial court on 18-2-2009 for executing the bond under Sec. 4(1) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Petition is disposed of as above. Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2009. Sd/-V. Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/