IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1065 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.54/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.284/1993 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- RAJESH ALIAS UNNI, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ROADARIKATHU HOUSE, KOPPAM, VITHURA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAMAN PILLAI(SR.) SRI.T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY POLICE FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.R.P.No.1065 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner was found guilty by the trial court of the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/= and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. The above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the sessions court. Hence, this revision petition. 2. Gravamen of the charge against the petitioner was that he was found in possession of a dynamo belt on the railway premises at about 9.30 a.m on December 5, 1993. Petitioner was apprehended by the officials of the Railway Protection Force. PW4, Vehicle Inspector, Southern Railway, gave evidence to the effect that MO1- dynamo belt was a railway property as could be seen from the emblem of the railways on it. I do not propose to deal with the evidence 2 Crl.R.P.No.1065/01 adduced by the prosecution in support of its case in great detail, since having carefully perused the entire records available on record including deposition of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts.P1 to P7 adduced by the prosecution, I am satisfied that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioner. I am persuaded to take the above view for the added reason that the sessions court in appeal after a careful re-evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence had concurred with the finding entered by the trial court. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of conviction passed by the courts below need not be disturbed at all. 3. However, coming to the question of sentence, it has to be noticed that the alleged offence was committed by the petitioner way back in the year 1993. He was a youngster in his twenty's at the time of the commission of the offence. He has been concurrently awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/=. Admittedly, the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case. Similarly, he had not committed any offence under the Act in 3 Crl.R.P.No.1065/01 question also. More importantly, MO1- dynamo belt, even according to the prosecution, was only worth Rs.250/=. Moreover, the report of the Probation Officer, which was called for by the appellate court, clearly indicated that the petitioner had an unblemished past record. But, the appellate court did not rely on the above report since, admittedly the appellant was a permanent resident of Trivandrum and therefore, no benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to him. 4. Having heard Sri. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the entire materials available on record, I am satisfied that the substantive sentence imposed on the petitioner need not be sustained. Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months is set aside. The petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/=, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on January 8, 2009 to receive the sentence . 4 Crl.R.P.No.1065/01 The revision petition is allowed to the above extent. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl 5 Crl.R.P.No.1065/01 A.K.BASHEER, J. CRL.R.P.No.1065 OF 2001 O R D E R 5th December, 2008