IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3051 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.165/1995 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- S.NEJIMON S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, PALLITHADATHIL VEEDU, CHUNKAPPARA, KOTTAKKAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ====================== Crl.R.P. No. 3051 of 2009 ====================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.No.372/93 for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In Crl. Appeal No.165/95 his conviction and sentence were confirmed. Now this revision petition. 2. Having heard either side and perusing the judgments of the courts below, it is revealed that at about 10.30 a.m on 9.4.1993 in front of Arya Bhavan Hotel, Thampanoor the petitioner snatched away a gold chain and a necklace worn by the defacto complainant who was examined as PW1. Her evidence regarding the snatching away of the gold chain and necklace was corroborated by testimony of PW2 who is sister-in-law of PW1. There is no good reason to disbelieve PWs. 1 and 2. On the basis of Crl.R.P. No. 3051/2009 2 Ext.P1 first information statement, PW8, the Head Constable attached to Thampanoor police station registered the case as Cr.No.50/93 for offence under Section 379 IPC. PW9, the Sub Inspector took over the investigation, arrested the revision petitioner and on the basis of the statement given by him, the necklace and the gold chain were recovered under Ext.P3 recovery mahazar from the shop of PW6. Statement of the revision petitioner also supports the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 regarding the complicity of the revision petitioner. The courts below had appreciated the evidence and found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence. I find little reason to interfere with the finding regarding the guilt. The conviction is based on cogent evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the same. 3. It is revealed that the revision petitioner was aged only 19 years on the date of occurrence and was a student. Report of the Probation Officer was called for. The Probation Officer has reported that the revision petitioner Crl.R.P. No. 3051/2009 3 is a first offender and no previous conviction was proved. He has a permanent place of abode and he is fearing the sentence and its consequences. It is also reported that since 2000 he is employed in Gulf countries. In the above circumstances, the Probation Officer had recommended to release the revision petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. I find no reason to reject the report of the Probation Officer . I find that it would be just and proper to release the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing him at once. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is set aside. Instead of sentencing him at once he shall stand released on executing a bail bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with an undertaking to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon within a period of 2 years. In the meantime, he shall keep peace, good Crl.R.P. No. 3051/2009 4 behavior and conduct. He shall be under the supervision of the Protection Officer during the period. The revision petitioner shall execute the bail bond within three weeks. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mns Crl.R.P. No. 3051/2009 5