The court upheld the conviction for possession of stolen property, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000.

JUDGMENT :

Assailing the judgment dated 13.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.38 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chittoor, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused No.2 by the judgment dated 13.02.2006 in C.C.No.166 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chittoor, for the offences under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.2 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 23.10.2008 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2164 of 2008.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i). On 11.01.2005 some unknown offenders committed theft of gold, silver, silk sarees, watch, CD player and cash of Rs.23,000/- from the house of Mogili Venkatagiri situated at Gangasagaram, Reddigunta Post, Chittor Mandal. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.12 of 2005 was registered by CCS Chittoor Police under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and investigated into.

ii). On 01.04.2005 at about 08.00 a.m., P.W.6 Inspector of Police, got arrested accused No.1 in the presence of mediators, he confessed about the above offences committed by him, produced the stolen properties from his house as well bushes in front of his house and some portion of property were pledged by his mother accused No.2. P.W.6 seized the said property under the cover of Ex.P.2 mediators report.

iii). On the same day at about 11.00 a.m., accused No.1 lead the police to the house Dr.No.4-351, Godugumur, Chittoor Municipal Limits, Chittoor, shown accused No.2, then she (accused No.2) admitted about the possession of stolen properties brought by her son (accused No.1), about her pledging three items of gold jewels to a pawn broker and she produced some of the stolen properties concerning to the above crimes. Then, P.W.6 seized the same under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediators report. In pursuance of their confession, police also seized some of the stolen property from the bushes at a distance of 40 feet to the northern side of their house under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report. Then both the accused lead the police to pawn broker, the said pawn broker handed over the pledged gold jewels and they seized the same under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.6 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.166 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chittoor, after full-fledged trial, found the accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC, vide judgment dated 13.02.2006, sentenced accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month as well sentenced accused No.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.38 of 2006, before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chittoor and the same was partly allowed, vide judgment dated 13.10.2008, by confirming the conviction passed against the accused Nos.1 and 2, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment passed against the accused No.1 to one year rigorous imprisonment from three (3) years only.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.2.

7. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the fi