Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41706
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J
MOHANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 2934/2003
The court affirmed the conviction for misappropriation while utilizing probation provisions to offer leniency, highlighting the justice system's balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
Headnote:
Revision - Criminal Conviction - IPC Section 409, Probation of Offenders Act Sections 4(1), 4(3) - The court upheld the conviction for misappropriation but applied probation provisions for leniency considering the accused's role and circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an extra departmental delivery agent, was convicted under Section 409 IPC for misappropriating money orders in 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment and fines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' judgments and upheld the conviction, while invoking probation provisions.
Issues: Whether there were valid grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The upheld conviction underscored the seriousness of misappropriation, while the application of probation was justified by the nature of the accused's employment and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The revision petition is disposed of; conviction upheld with probation.
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is moved by the petitioner herein challenging the concurrent finding of guilt. The accused in C.C.No.39/99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Thrissur is the petitioner. He was tried and convicted for the offence under Section 409 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default simple imprisonment for six months. The appeal preferred by him was also not unsuccessful. Hence this revision petition.
2. When the criminal revision petition came up hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is a extra departmental delivery agent in postal department. The allegation is that he had misappropriated the amounts entrusted to deliver money order. The incident occurred in the year 1997.
After hearing the learned counsel, I perused the records and evidence available in this case. It can be seen that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction entered into by the courts below as there was no illegality or perversity committed by the courts below.
3. A report of the Probation Officer was seen called by this court by its order dated 4.10.2016. I perused the report from the District Probation Officer, Thrissur. He recommended the invoking of the provisions under Section 4 (1) and (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 . After considering the fact that the accused was only an extra departmental employee and further considering the amount involved, the following order is passed :
The conviction is upheld. It is directed that the revision petitioner be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon within a period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour and further for the said period he shall be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer who filed the report in this case.
Invoking the provisions under Section 4 (1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 , this revision petition is disposed of.
The bond shall be executed before the trial court.
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE sv.
