The court upheld the conviction for theft while emphasizing the need for adequate reasoning when denying probation to first-time offenders.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard learned counsel Sri Manjunath Ginni, appearing for the revision petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.266/2016 by judgment dated 17.02.2020 for the offences punishable under Section s 457 and 380 of IPC , imposing sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC and shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to pay fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and also ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 380 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.3/2020 by Judgment dated 20.11.2020, are the revision petitioners.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1 The charge-sheet filed by the Saidapura Police Station would reveal that on 04.04.2016 at about 11.45 p.m., within the limits of Saidapura Police Station, during the night hours, both the revision petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, lurked into the premises where Airtel mobile telephone tower was established in Balichakra Village by breaking open the lock of the generator and committed the theft of Insta Power Battery worth Rs.10,000/- and thereby, committed the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC . After due trial, accused were convicted and sentenced as referred to supra.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.3/2020.

3.3 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal.

4. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have preferred the present revision petition, challenging the validity of the conviction and sentence.

5. Learned counsel Sri Manjunath Ginni for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that material evidence are not sufficient enough to maintain the conviction which has been wrongly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the revision petition.

6. Alternatively, he would contend that petitioners being the first time offenders, Trial Court ought to have considered the grounds of the petitioners and having failed to do so, this Court may consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin supports the impugned Judgments. He would further contend that there was a clear animus in the act committed by the petitioners inasmuch as they had hatched a plan and taking advantage of the establishment of the tower in a lonely place, broke open the lock to the generator room which was installed beneath the mobile telephone tower and they have stolen away the Insta Battery, whereby not only the functioning of the tower stopped but, also there is a pecuniary loss to the Company and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the material evidence on record would go to show that it is the petitioners who have lurked into the guarded premises where the Airtel mobile tower is installed.

10. Learned Trial Judge while appreciating the material evidence on record took into consid