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. 96 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRA.262/2008 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1026/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SALAM, AGED 36,S/O.KOCHUMOHAMMED, NADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR CANAL BUND, ONNAM MILE BHAGAM KARATTUPALLY, PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ............................................. CRL.R.P. NO. 96 of 2010 ............................................ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 ORDER In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C. No. 1026 of 2007 on the file of the J.f.C.M., Perumbavoor for an offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 2 a.m. on 22-4-1997 the accused committed theft of a Yamaha Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL7/AK 2850 from the Car porch of P.W.1. He has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned CRL.R.P. NO. 96 of 2010 -:2:- offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 7documents as Exts. P1 to P7. 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 18-2-2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam as per judgment CRL.R.P. NO. 96 of 2010 -:3:- dated 14-7-2009 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the judgments of the Courts below, I see little scope for interference. The findings recorded by the courts below are on the basis of appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. Both the courts below have believed the prosecution witnesses. Sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the concurrent findings. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the findings recorded by the courts below. This Revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. V.Ramkumar, Judge. CRL.R.P. NO. 96 of 2010 -:4:-