The High Court allowed a revision petition challenging conviction for carrying house-breaking implements. The court set aside the jail sentence and directed release on probation of good conduct for two years.
Sentence set aside; petitioners released on probation of good conduct for two years with bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 89 of 2009()
CRL.APPEAL NO.567/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2675/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2009 -------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009.
ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor who appeared for the respondents.
Crl.R.P.No.89/2009
2
contended by learned counsel that petitioners are coolie workers and with their implements they were standing at the place of occurrence but they were falsely arrested. This contention is disproved by the facts disclosed in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the nature of the implements the petitioners are proved to have been carrying at the relevant time. It is also important to note that petitioners had no such explanation when they were questioned and arrested by PW1. Courts below considered the evidence and found that petitioners committed offence punishable under Section 48(c) of the Kerala Police Act. There is little reason to interfere with the conviction.
Crl.R.P.No.89/2009
3
Resultantly revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines:
i. Sentence imposed on the petitioners is set aside and instead, they are released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond.
ii. Petitioners 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) each with two sureties each 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.
Crl.R.P.No.89/2009
4
iii. Petitioners shall be under the supervision of the Additional Probation Officer, Palakkad for the said period of two years. The trial court shall issue necessary orders to the Additional Probation Officer, Palakkad for that purpose.
Crl.M.A.No.274 of 2009 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 48(c) of the Kerala Police Act should be disturbed.
Whether the appellants are eligible to be released on probation of good conduct.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
KANNAN
SHAMSUDHEEN
STATE OF KERALA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
