The revision court confirmed the conviction under Section 381 IPC while modifying the sentence to Simple Imprisonment, affirming the lower courts' decisions based on substantial evidence.

ORDER

The concurrent conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, and the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri, in CC No.1059/2002 and Crl.Appeal No.24/2004 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 381 IPC , are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who was the store keeper of the office of the Mathrubhumi Daily at Kottakkal, committed theft of news print reels on 19.08.2002 and 25.08.2002 with the help of the 3rd accused, who was the security staff associated with the above establishment, and the 2nd accused, who was the friend of the petitioner. The value of the stolen item is said to be Rs.15,000/-. In connection with the above offence, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tirur, laid the Final Report before the learned Magistrate.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, 22 witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW22 and 15 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P15. MO1 series and MO2 series were identified as material objects. From the part of the petitioner/accused, 2 witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and one document was marked as Ext.D1. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner herein guilty of commission of the offence under Section 381 IPC , while the other two accused were found not guilty. The petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.5000/- with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months. Though the petitioner challenged the above verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the revision petitioner on repeated posting dates, notice was issued to the revision petitioner intimating the posting of the case. Still, the revision petitioner did not choose to appear before the Court or to make arrangements for advancing arguments. In the above circumstances, Adv.Athira K.S, was appointed as Amicus Curie to represent the revision petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of PW4, who had been conducting an establishment by name ‘Fathima Traders, Thirurangadi’, to which the petitioner herein had sold the stolen news print reels. The above witness had stated before the Trial Court in categorical terms that the petitioner had repeatedly contacted him in connection with the sale of the above stolen items, and that he happened to purchase the same without knowing that it has been stolen from the establishment where the petitioner had been working. Though the petitioner had adduced defence evidence through the examination of DW2 to show that a person who had acted as an intermediary in the aforesaid sale was not aware of any such transaction, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court refused to accept the aforesaid evidence of DW2. The contention of the petitioner that he was only an apprentice trainee, and had no responsibility with the store, was also rejected by the courts below by relying on the evidence of PW1, who stated that Apprentice Clerks are put in