Madras High Court
Vijay vs State By Sub Inspector Of Police on 8 July, 2015
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.7.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Crl.R.C.No.354 of 2010 Vijay : Petitioner versus State by Sub Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Karumalaikoodal Crime No.292/2008 Mettur Taluk, Salem : respondent Revision filed against the order made in C.A.No.21/2010 dated 10.3.2010 on the file of the Addl. District Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Salem. For petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For respondent : Mr.V.Arul, Government Advocate O R D E R
The petitioner was tried in C.C.No.148 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur. The petitioner was convicted for offence under section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal in C.A.No.21/2010, before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Salem who upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. Inasmuch as two courts have already gone into the facts and given concurrent findings holding the accused guilty, it may not be necessary for me to go into the facts and circumstances of the case again. Moreover, this court sitting in revision is called upon to satisfy itself with the correctness, legality and propriety of the orders passed by the courts below, and not to re-appraise the evidence. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
"a) On 25.7.2008, at about 7.10 p.m., the petitioner and another, who were working as driver and cleaner, stole 16 MMMS rods from Malco Company, Salem, where they were to deliver some products.
b) A case was registered against the petitioner and another and they were tried in C.C.No.148 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur and the petitioner was convicted as aforesaid."
4. After making some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments with regard to sentence alone. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is first time offender and he has no bad antecedents. He has already served the sentence for about 20 days and he has also paid fine. The petitioner is repenting for his acts. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is aged 34 years and he has got a family to take care. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for mercy to be shown to the accused.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence.
6. On going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner is a first time offender. He is just 34 years now and he has got a family to look after. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, while confirming the conviction, the petitioner is released under Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside. The revision petitioner is released on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The fine amount paid by the petitioner shall be treated as compensation and costs as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
7. The revision is disposed of accordingly.
8.7.2015 tar B. RAJENDRAN, J.
(tar) To
1.The Addl. District Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court
4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Karumalaikoodal, Mettur Taluk, Salem.
Crl.R.C.No.354 of 20108.7.2015