BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 13.09.2023 Pronounced On : 02.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.RC(MD). No.1014 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD). Nos.13105 and 13107 of 2023 Selvi @ Saroja ... Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.1 Vs.

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District, In Crime No.662 of 2009. ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to admit this Revision on file, to call for the records from the Lower Courts and set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Court passed in Crl.A.No.132 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur dated 21.07.2023 confirming the Judgment in C.C.No.266 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi dated 26.09.2022 by allowing this Revision.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Maya Perumal For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the impugned judgment in Crl.A.No.132 of 2022, dated 21.07.2023, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the order in C.C.No.266 of 2013, dated 26.09.2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi.

2. The prosecution came forward with the case that on 27.10.2009, the petitioner herein approached the defacto complainant and asked to give house cleaning work as a servant. Therefore, the defacto complainant allowed her to work in his house as servant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner committed theft gold jewels. Hence, the defacto complainant made a complaint before the respondent police and the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.662 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC.

3. After registration of the case, the respondent police conducted investigation and arrested the accused. The petitioner confessed that she stole the jewels and money and entrusted the same with the second accused. On the basis of the confession, the jewels were recovered. After the completion of investigation, the respondent police filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.266 of 2023.

4. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi, framed necessary charges and the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, convicted the petitioner and sentenced her to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. As against the same, the petitioner herein has filed Crl.A.No.132 of 2022 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and the same was dismissed on 21.07.2023. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed this criminal revision case before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution never established the case against the petitioner without taking the finger print report. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, in her confession, has specifically, stated that she colluded with the other accused and stolen the jewels and shared the same between them. There was no evidence in this aspect. Both the Courts below failed to see that the recovery mahazar itself would disclose that the same was not prepared by the Inspector of Police. Further, the Courts below failed to see that the recovery of the property has also not been proved by the prosecution under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge and the appellate Judge, without any evidence, presumed that the petitioner committed the offence, and simply on the basis of the recovery, convicted the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to allow this case.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)