K. Harilal, J.

1. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.150/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri, as well as the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.98/2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-III, Manjeri. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the learned Magistrate found him guilty of the said offence and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Though the Revision Petitioner had preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the courts below.

2. Prosecution case is that a motor cycle bearing No. KRP 6959 worth Rs.10,000/-, belongs to the brother of PW5 who is working at Bangalore, was being used by PW5 for his personal use. On 08.02.2007, PW5 visited the District Hospital, Manjeri, after parking the above motor bike in the premises of the said hospital. When he came back at 6 PM, the bike was found stolen. According to the prosecution, it was the Revision Petitioner/Accused who committed the theft of the above motor cycle from the premises of the said hospital and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In trial, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced by the Revision Petitioner/Accused. PW1 is the Sub Inspector of Police of the Perinthalmanna Police Station, who arrested the accused and seized the motor cycle. He deposed that on 08.02.2007 at about 2 AM, he saw the Revision Petitioner/Accused in front of a service station at Perinthalmanna, riding a motor cycle along the road in a suspicious circumstance. So, he arrested the Revision Petitioner, seized the motor cycle and FIR was prepared under Section 41(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, on interrogation, it was revealed that the Revision Petitioner was the person who committed the theft of PW5's motor cycle. Then PW1 filed Ext.P3 report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perinthalmanna incorporating Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Since the place of occurrence alleged in this case comes within the jurisdiction of the Manjeri Police Station, the case records were transferred to Manjeri Police Station for further action. PW7 Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri Police Station prepared the Scene Mahazar and conducted the investigation in this case. PW6 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri. He has deposed that he laid the final report against the Revision Petitioner/Accused.

4. The Revision Petitioner/Accused entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the court below found the Revision Petitioner/Accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. The court below mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, PW2 Head Constable who accompanied PW1 at the time of arrest and seizure of the vehicle, PW5 the person who was in possession of the motor vehicle at the time of theft and relied on Exts.P1 Seizure Mahazar, P2 FIR and P5 FIR in Crime No.140/2007 of Manjeri Police Station. The arrest and seizure of the vehicle from the possession of the Revision Petitioner/Accused were proved by PW1 and PW2. PW1 deposed that while PW1 was conducting patrol duty, along with PW2, the Revision Petitioner/Accused was arrested with the above motor cycle, seized the motor bike under Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar and thereafter registered Ext.P2 FIR against the Revision Petitioner/Accused under Section 41(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also proved that at the time o