IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2720 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.487/2007 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1906/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- LIJU, S/O.NANU, AGED 23, EDATHALASSERY HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM KARA, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 2720 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 20.8.2003 at 2 a.m. petitioner broke open the lock of Poovanthra watch house in Chengamanadu owned by PW1 and committed theft of wrist watches and watch cases worth Rs.16,550/- and thereby committed offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined five witnesses and marked three exhibits and identified material objects 1 to 4, the stolen articles recovered under Ext.P2 recovery mahazar. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found the petitioner guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months each and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.Appeal 487 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge CRRP 2720/08 2 on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. 2. While admitting the revision, a report was called for from District Probation Officer on the petitioner. The District Probation Officer, Ernakulam submitted a report dated 29.9.2008 stating that petitioner is not involved in any other offence and he is now engaged in construction work for the last four years and is earning money and is supporting his family. The Probation Officer also reported that it is a fit case to deal with the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and he could be released as provided under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The evidence of PW1, the owner of the watch shop, establish that there was theft in his shop on the night of 20.8.2003 and it was committed by breaking open the lock of the watch shop on the night and several watches and watch cases were stolen. The evidence of PW5, the Sub Inspector of police establishes that after arresting the accused on the information CRRP 2720/08 3 furnished by him, MOI series of watches were recovered under Ext.P2 recovery mahazar on the information furnished by the petitioner. The evidence of PW1 establishes that MO1 series are the stolen articles. Learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge appreciated and accepted the evidence of PW5 with regard to the recovery. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings. Evidence establish that petitioner committed the offences under sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Conviction of the petitioner is perfectly legal. 4. The report of the District Probation Officer, Ernakulam establishes that this is a fit case where benefit of the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act could be granted to the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that police has also reported that petitioner is not involved in any other case subsequent to the offence committed in this case. In such circumstances petitioner is granted the benefit under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner is confirmed. Instead of sentencing the petitioner, he is directed to be released on executing a bond for two years with two CRRP 2720/08 4 solvent sureties as provided under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He shall be under observation of District Probation Officer, Ernakulam during that period. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-