IMPORTANT POINTS
The Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case to ask the witness to identify the accused present in the dock. Such an identification of accused in the dock is essential in criminal trials when the offendor is not previously known to the witness. Such a procedure was not resorted to in this case. Revision petitioners were tried along with three other co-accused and therefore itself, the need for precise identification of revision petitioners in court cannot be brushed aside.

ORDER :

The revision petitioners are A1 and A2 in C.C.No.262/1995 on the file of JFCM, Thiruvalla, charge sheeted by S.I. of Police, Keezhvaipur, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 407, 468, 204 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The petitioners were tried along with the co-accused A3 to A5 and by judgment dated 28.10.2000, the co-accused were acquitted of all the charges. Petitioners were also acquitted of some of the charges, except offence punishable under Section 407 read with Section 34 IPC. They were convicted of offence punishable under Section 407 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence for another rigorous imprisonment for six months. Though Crl.A.No.214 of 2000 was filed by them before Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, the conviction and sentence were only confirmed.

3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence, this revision is filed.

4. PW3 is the Managing partner of P.V.Mathew and Company, who is a dealer in raw rubber conducting business in Aanikadu, Pathanamthitta. Economic Transport Organisation, Kottayam Branch, is a transport company which used to transport the rubber sheets supplied by PW3 to various parts of the country under his orders, for quite a long period of time.

5. The prosecution allegation is that on 26.7.1993, PW3 placed orders with the transport agency for transport and delivery of 9 tons of rubber sheets worth Rs.3 lakhs to Sathara and Poona in Maharashtra. PW4, the Manager of the Economic Transport Organisation, Kottayam Branch, following the usual practice, arranged the vehicle through JR Roadways, Kottayam. The lorry arranged by PW5, the Managing partner of JR Roadways, Kottayam, was bearing registration No.MH-04/C-7589 and the driver and cleaner of the vehicle are A1 and A2 respectively. PW6, a clerical staff attached to the office of PW4, accompanied the driver and cleaner in the vehicle to the business premises of PW3 and ensured that 9 tons of rubber sheets were loaded in the vehicle on 26.7.1993. Pws.1 and 2 are the two headload workers under the employment of PW3, who loaded the goods. The vehicle left for the destination at night on 26.7.1993.

6. When the payment for consignment was delayed by the customers, PW3 contacted the dealers in Sathara and Poona and got information that the rubber sheets did not reach the destination. Similar inquiries were made by PW4 and PW5 also. In the meantime, Ext.P9 series copies of consignment notes returned undelivered. In the light of suspicious circumstances, the matter was reported by PW3 to the police at Keezhvaipur on 21.8.1993 and Ext.P13 crime was registered by the S.I. of Police. It came out that the original number of the lorry was changed from MH-04/C-3626 to MH-04/C-7589 and further RC book of MH-04/C-1589 was stolen and misused for making a false RC book. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 7.11.1993. The lorry bearing No.MH-04/C-3626 was seized from the limits of Thana Police Station in Bombay and later brought to Keezhvaipur Police station. Likewise, lorry No.MH- 04/C-1589 was also seized and subjected to verification. After questioning the revision petitioners and upon their alleged confession, 71 bundles of rubber sheets each having 50 kgs. were recovered from their house bearing Door No.IX/356 as per Ext.P12 mahazar dated 9.11.1993 along with a jeep bearing registration No.KRT/2493 purchased by them with the money allegedly realised by sale of a portion of the rubber sheets taken in the lorry for delivery. After completing investigation, PW11, the Sub Inspector of Police laid final report before the trial court.

7. Prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P20. No defence evidence was adduced by any of the accused and their common defence is that this is a drama played by PW3, the Transporting company and others, only to make wrongful gain out o