ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2026

This criminal revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No. 526 of 2010.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No. 1070 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam and the appellant in Crl.A. No.526 of 2010. He stood for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 461 and 380 of IPC.

3. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 454 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 380 of IPC with default clause and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. He was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 461 of IPC.

4. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, confirming the conviction and the sentence.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.02.2010 at about 12.45 p.m., the accused broke open the staircase door of the house of PW1 and committed the theft of a laptop and its charger worth Rs. 24,000/- kept in the study room of PW1.

6. Before the trial court, PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked. MOs. 1 to 2 were identified and marked. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the evidence, found the appellant guilty and convicted him.

The submissions of Sri. Alex John Pulimood, the learned Amicus Curiae

7. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2026, has appointed an Amicus Curiae since there was consecutive no representation from the part of the revision petitioner. Even though, notice was sent to the revision petitioner intimating him the date of the case, there was no response from the revision petitioner. The Amicus Curiae submitted that the findings of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge are illegal, irregular and improper. Both the courts have missed out various illegalities and irregularities in the case.

8. The learned Amicus has assailed the judgment impugned mainly on four grounds, firstly, the recovery of laptop and the charger [MO1 and MO1(a)] from the hostel room is insufficient to fasten penal liability on the accused, as there are more than 20 persons residing in one room. Secondly, the disclosure statement of the accused has been recorded in Malayalam. However, it has come out in evidence that the accused is hailing from the state of West Bengal. He does not know Malayalam. It is further submitted that, there is a delay of about 48 hours in lodging the FIS which is not explained by the prosecution. The non-examination of the owner of the laptop would also cast serious doubts in the prosecution story.

Submissions of Sri. Manoj P. Kunjachan, Senior Government Pleader

9. It is submitted that the trial court and the appellate court, after a careful consideration of the evidence, have arrived at a proper conclusion as to the guilt, conviction and sentence. It is impermissible for the revisional court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and to arrive at a different conclusion. The findings of the trial court and the appellate court are legal, regular and proper. Therefore, no interference from this Court is warranted in this matter.

10. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdicti