Partly allowed

Shafeeq.T.P v. Assistant Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC6 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/1620/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused for theft under Section 379 IPC. Finding jail imprisonment not mandatory, it substituted the original sentence with a fine of Rs. 5,000, allowing three months to remit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; jail sentence substituted with fine of Rs. 5,000; three months grace period granted to remit the fine.

Shafeeq.T.P Vs Assistant Sub Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/15TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1620 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.862/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA

¶7

CC 689/2005 of J.M.F.C.,NADAPURAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SHAFEEQ.T.P

¶10

S/O.IBRAHIM, MADATHIL HOUSE, VALAYAM AMSOM

¶11

KUYITHERY DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE.:

¶14

ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶15

VALAYAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-683 031.

¶19

R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶22

Crl.R.P. No.1620 of 2012

¶23

Dated 6^th March, 2014

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.689 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The allegation is that on 16.8.2005, during night,

¶27

PW1 had parked a motor bike bearing Registration No.KL-11/H697 at the portico of his residential house. His sister's son Salim was the registered owner of the said motor bike. On the next day morning the motor bike was found missing. PW2, a neighbour had seen the accused on the previous night, standing at the road near to the residential house of PW1 and therefore, PW1 and PW2 assumed that the accused had committed theft of the said motor bike and therefore, Ext.P1 First Information Statement was given by PW1 before the Valayam Police. On the next day morning the Sub Inspector of Police, Mattannur, allegedly found the accused with the motor bike and arrested him.

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.1620 of 2012

¶29

¶30

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The period of detention undergone by the accused from 27.8.2005 to 14.12.2005 was allowed to be set off under Section 328 of the Cr.P.C. Crl. Appeal No.862 of 2008 filed before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Vatakara was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶33

raised the same contentions raised before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below convicted the accused under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, on properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶34

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that at the time of occurrence, the accused was aged

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1620 of 2012

¶36

¶37

only 19 years and he was in jail in connection with the above case from 27.8.2005 to 14.12.2005 and on considering this aspect, further jail sentence may be avoided.

¶38

For the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, jail sentence is not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay fine of `5,000/- under Section 379 of the I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in C.C.No.689 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram under Section 379 of the I.P.C. is confirmed. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 379 of the I.P.C. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner to remit the fine amount before the trial court.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶42

tgs

¶43

(true copy)

Shafeeq.T.P v. Assistant Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafeeq.T.P v. Assistant Sub Inspector of Police

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

Ramachandran and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Dani.v.a. Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Dennis Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shine Vs State of Kerala

George Henry and Another Vs State of Kerala