IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1189 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.656/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.244/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- NOUSHAD,S/O.ABDUL VAHEED,AGED 41 YEARS, RAJI MANZIL, NEAR LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, THENHEPARAGODU MURI, PANGODU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1189 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 15th Day of June, 2010 ORDER The first accused in C.C.No.244/2004 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, is the revision petitioner. 2. Case against the accused is that a Maruthi-800 C.C. DX-E2 A/c Car with golden metallic colour bearing Reg.No.KL-2L/3772, fetching an appropriate value of Rs.2,75,000/- belonged to CW2, which was in the possession of CW1, was stolen from the car porch of the house of CWs 1 and 2 and thereby the accused, four in numbers, committed the offence punishable under sections 379 and 465 and 34 of IPC. 3. On the basis of the said allegation, crime No.15/2002 was registered in the Anchal police station for the above offences and after investigation, a report was filed by the police upon which cognizance was taken and C.C.No.244/2004 was instituted. As the accused 2 to 4 Crl.r.p.1189/10 -:2:- were absconding, the case against them was split up and refiled the same as C.C.No.1468/2006. 4. On the basis of the materials furnished by the police, a formal charge under sections 379, 465 and 34 IPC was framed against those accused and when the same was read over and explained to the revision petitioner/accused, he pleaded guilty. Therefore, without going into the process of recording evidence, the trial court by its judgment dated 18.12.2006 in C.C.No.244/2004 convicted the revision petitioner for the above offences and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under section 379 IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under section 465 IPC. It is also ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently and set off was allowed. 5. On appeal at the instance of the revision petitioner, by judgment dated 8.4.2008, in Crl.A.No.656/2006, the Sessions Court, Kollam, while upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, but set aside the order to run the sentence consecutively and, instead, directed to run the Crl.r.p.1189/10 -:3:- sentence concurrently. Thus, the appeal was dismissed with the above modification. 6. It is the above sentence of the trial court and as modified by the lower appellate court challenged in this Crl.R.P. The learned Counsel Sri P.K. Ibrahim, appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has also involved in another crime and he had undergone imprisonment in that case and after his involvement in this crime, he was leading a peaceful life with his family and therefore pleaded that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel, and also considering the fact that the revision petitioner/accused had admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty, I am of the view that some modification can be made with respect to the sentence. 8. Accordingly, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner under section 379 IPC is reduced to 2 years and the sentence of two Crl.r.p.1189/10 -:4:- years rigorous imprisonment awarded under section 465 IPC is also reduced to one year. These sentences shall run concurrently and set off under section 428 Cr.P.C is allowed. 9. This Court, today by a separate order in Crl.R.P. No.1188/2010, while confirming the conviction of the very same revision petitioner, reduced the sentence awarded against him and thus the sentence under two heads were ordered to run concurrently. By virtue of Section 427, it is incumbent upon the trial court as well as the lower appellate court to fix the mode of running of the sentence, when the accused who is already sentenced previously, is subsequently sentenced. Subsection (1) of Section 427 gives discretionary powers to the court in this regard. Being the revisional court, especially, when the revision is filed mainly on the ground of sentence, this Court is bound to consider the plea of the accused/revision petitioner, under section 427(1) Cr.P.C. 10 . As I am satisfied with the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, the sentence now modified in this Crl.R.P can be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence Crl.r.p.1189/10 -:5:- awarded against the revision petitioner in the previous case, viz., Crl.R.P. No.1188/2010. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner for the above offences, but with modification with respect to the sentence to the extent indicated above and with further direction that the sentence now modified and imposed against the revision petitioner will run concurrently with the sentence as modified by this court by judgment dated 15.6.2010 in Crl.R.P. No.1188/2010. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to sent the gist of the orders to the concerned Jail authorities forthwith. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.r.p.1189/10 -:6:- kvm/- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..