2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31780
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
THOMAS @ THADI THOMAS
– Appellant
Versus
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 282 2020
T.G.RAJENDRAN, SMT. SREEJA V -SR.PP
A prima facie case based on reasonable suspicion of habituation in theft suffices for framing charges under IPC Section 401.
Headnote:
Criminal - Theft - IPC Section List - The court reviewed allegations under IPC Sections 401, 379, 411, 414, 468, and 471, emphasizing the necessity for evidence indicating habitual criminality to sustain charges, ultimately affirming the lower court's charge framing due to reasonable suspicion of involvement in vehicle theft.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in multiple vehicle thefts, contested the framing of charges under IPC Section 401, arguing insufficient evidence of habitual criminality despite being arrested with implements used for theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the evidence presented, noting the history of vehicle thefts associated with the petitioner and concluded that reasonable suspicion existed to uphold the charges framed by the lower court.
Issues: Whether the materials presented support charges under IPC Section 401, particularly concerning habitual commission of theft or robbery.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of habitual criminality under IPC Section 401 is a factual question that requires evidence at trial; reasonable suspicion is sufficient to frame charges.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the charge framing and dismissed the petitioner's request for intervention.
ORDER
The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.1187/2012 of Vadakara Police Station. The aforesaid crime was originally registered under Section 41(1)(d) read with Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Later, a further report was submitted therein altering the offences as Sections 379 , 411, 414, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused, total 7 in number, is as follows: The accused Nos.1 to 4 are members of a gang wandering through South India and indulging in the theft of vehicles. The 5th accused used to purchase stolen vehicles and the accused Nos.5 and 6 used to jointly make false registration certificates for the said vehicle and the 7th accused used to sell the said vehicles. It is further alleged that, they are habitual offenders regularly engaged in these kinds of activities. On 19.11.2012 at 16.30 hours, the Police party intercepted a vehicle in which the petitioner and the accused Nos.1 to 3 were travelling and on inspection, the Police party recovered certain implements which were used for committing theft of vehicle. The crime was registered in such circumstances. After completing the investigation, Annexure I final report was submitted on 20.08.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 401 of the . The learned Magistrate framed the charge as per Annexure IV and the same is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the materials produced along with the final report and the allegations contained therein do not make out the offence under Section 401 of the Indian Penal Code . He further contend that, in order to attract the offence under there must be materials to show that the petitioner and others are belonging to a gang of persons associated with the acts of habitually committing theft or robbery. Therefore, it is contended that in the absence of materials indicating that the petitioner is a habitual offender, no offence under of would get attracted.
5. On the other hand, the learned Pubic Prosecutor would oppose the said contentions. It is pointed out that, the petitioner was arrested along with the articles which are used for committing theft of vehicles. It is also pointed that, as against the petitioner herein there are six other cases registered by the Vadakara Police Station. The details of the said cases were as follows:
| Sl. No. | Police Station | Crime No. |
| 1 | Vatakara | 1189/12 – transferred to Vijaya Nagar PS, Karnataka State |
| 2 | Vatakara | 1190/12 – transferred to Vijaya Nagar PS, Karnataka State |
| 3 | Vatakara | 1194/12 – transferred to Hudco PS, Tamil Nadu State |
| 4 | Vatakara | 1214/12 – transferred to Havoli PS, Maharashtra State |
| 5 | Vatakara | 1216/12 – transferred to Hossur PS, Tamil Nadu State |
| 6 | Vatakara | 1253/12 – transferred to Kavadaly PS, Maharashtra State |
6. By placing reliance upon the same, it is pointed out that, there are sufficient materials, indicating the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and therefore, the stipulation for attracting the offence under Section 401 of Indian Penal Code are already available. 7. I have gone through the records and examined the statutory provisions in this regard. In order to attract the offence under of IPC , one of the essential requirements is that the persons against whom the offence is charged must be persons habitually committing theft or robbery. The learned counsel for the petitioner, places reliance uponArjun Das v. Emperor [ AIR 19