Partly allowed

P.v.Muhammed Malik Dinar @ Malik v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/474/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 379 IPC for theft of a gold ring, the High Court considered a report from the District Probation Officer. Finding the accused's conduct good and no prior convictions, the court released the petitioner on probation of good conduct for two years instead of immediate imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; imprisonment sentence set aside; petitioner released on probation of good conduct for two years under Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

P.v.Muhammed Malik Dinar @ Malik Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 474 of 2009()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.242/2008 of I ADDITIONAL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.192/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

P.V.MUHAMMED MALIK DINAR @ MALIK, S/O.UMMERKOYA, PARAYANVEETTIL HOUSE, PALAKKOTTUMEETHAL HOUSE, KOYATTIYIL, OLAVANNA PO

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT-STATE

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA - S.H.O. KASABA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.474 of 2009 -------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2009.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who appeared for the respondent.

¶19

The challenge in this revision is to the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.242 of 2008 confirming conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 20.9.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. while PW1, a blind bank employee assisted by his wife was going to his work place, attempted to board the bus, the lady fell down and sustained injury and while she was being taken to the hospital by PW3 and the petitioner, the latter stealthily removed the gold wedding ring she was wearing and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 379 of the Code. The lady later succumbed to the injuries. Case was registered on the information given by PW1. PW9, Sub Inspector got information on 26.9.2004 that a person is attempting to sell a ring, reached that place and arrested the petitioner. PW9 seized MO1, gold ring which the petitioner was keeping in his pocket in MO2, plastic cover. Ext.P7 is the mahazar prepared by PW9 for that purpose. PW9 has given evidence regarding the arrest and seizure. Though PW5, one of the

¶20

Crl.R.P.No.474/2009

¶21

¶22

attestors in Ext.P7 turned hostile PW11, another attestor in Ext.P7 support the prosecution. It has also come in evidence that on 24.9.2004 petitioner had pledged the same ring (MO1) with PW6 as per Ext.P2, token which was seized as per Ext.P3, mahazar. PW6 has given evidence in that line and identified MO1.

¶23

Regarding the incident proper evidence is given by PWs 1, 2 and 3. PW3 along with petitioner took the lady to the hospital. Evidence in that line is given by PW3. Courts below found that petitioner found in recent possession of MO1, gold ring belonging to the deceased lady and also in the light of the evidence on record true the presumption that the petitioner had committed theft of MO1. That finding rested on proper appreciation of evidence and requires no interference as it does not suffer any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that petitioner is not involved in any other offence, may have committed the offence on account of sudden impulse, he is leading a normal life and in the circumstances, the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be applied.

¶25

This Court had called for the report of the District Probation Officer, Kozhikode. It is revealed from the report that petitioner is now lading a normal and peaceful family life and that his conduct and behaviour is also good. He is

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.474/2009

¶27

¶28

not shown to be involved in any other case. His father died eight months back due to cancer. On going through the report of the District Probationary Officer and in the absence of evidence regarding any previous conviction, possibility of the petitioner committing the offence due to a sudden impulse cannot be ruled out. In the facts and circumstances of this case including the nature of the offence and character of the petitioner as reported by the District Probation Officer, I consider it expedient to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on executing a bond rather than sending him to jail to get mixed with the offenders detained there.

¶29

Resultantly revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines:

¶30

i. Instead of sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment as ordered by the learned magistrate, petitioner is released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond.

¶31

ii. Petitioner shall within two weeks from today execute bond as referred to in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the trial court for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of that court undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period of two years and to receive the sentence as and when called for.

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.474/2009

¶33

¶34

iii. Petitioner shall be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Kozikode for the said period of two years. The trial court shall issue necessary orders to the District Probation Officer, Kozhikode for that purpose.

¶35

Crl.M.A.No.1459 of 2009 will stand dismissed.

¶36

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶37

cks

P.v.Muhammed Malik Dinar @ Malik v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Muhammed Malik Dinar @ Malik v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.N.Panicker Vs State of Kerala

A.K.N.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala

Prakasan Vs State

Accamma Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Sudeep K.V Vs State of Kerala