IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3642 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.795/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.521/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BASHEER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RASACK PALLURUTHY KOTHAYAATHU PARAMBU, COCHIN-6, FROM KANNANKILAYATH HOUSE, NEAR MOSQUE, KODUNGALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.111/1999 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3642 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 10.03. 2010 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.521 of 1999 on the file of the J.F.C.M-III, Thiruvananthapuram for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 20.08.1999 at 10.30 am at a place called Palayam at Vachiyoor village near the University College bus stop while the de facto complainant was travelling in the bus bearing registration No.KL01 E7575, the accused committed theft of Rs.10,000/- which was kept in the bag of the de facto complainant by tearing the bag by means of a sharp edged weapon and taking away the money and thereby committed the above mentioned offence. 3. 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 Crl.R.P.No.3642/09 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 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 24.10.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 379 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to PW1/de facto complaint. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.795 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 28.9.2007 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the Crl.R.P.No.3642/09 -:3:- revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. This Court had called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Ernakulam. As per report dated 5.3.2010, the District Probation Officer, Ernakulam has reported that the petitioner does not have any house of his own and that he has been residing in a rented building. He has further reported that the petitioner is not involved in any other crimes. He has recommended that the petitioner could be released on probation for a period of 3 years. Accordingly, I am inclined to release the petitioner on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of three years. The revision petitioner shall execute a bond before the learned Crl.R.P.No.3642/09 -:4:- Magistrate undertaking to be on probation for good conduct for a period of three years during which time he shall report before the District Probation Officer concerned at such intervals as the court below shall indicate. The petitioner shall execute the requisite bond before the trial court within two weeks from today. Since PW1 was deprived of his money totalling to Rs.10,000/- in the occurrence, the petitioner will have to compensate him. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to PW1/ de facto complainant under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Money, if any, deposited by the petitioner before the trial court shall be adjusted towards the said payment. The petitioner is given one month's time to deposit the compensation amount, if not already deposited. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but directing his release on probation as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj