MANUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No. 221/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Kochi, was prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kochi Cusba Police Station in Cr.171/1997 for offence under Section 379 IPC. After trial, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 350 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to PW2 as compensation. Assailing the above conviction and sentence he preferred Crl.A.No. 205/2000 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 16/10/2002, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence this appeal is preferred. I have heard Adv. Sri. Ashik, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned and the evidence on record.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the revision petitioner committed theft of a bicycle belonging to PW2 worth Rs. 350/ -. In support of the prosecution case, PWs 2 and 4 had given evidence. PW3 would depose that he had purchased the bicycle from the revision petitioner. It is believing the above evidence, the revision petitioner was found guilty by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. I find no error, impropriety or illegality in the finding of the courts below. However, taking note that the revision petitioner was a fish vendor, then aged 26 year and that the value of the cycle was only Rs. 350/ - and no other bad antecedent is reported, I find that a sentence of a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - would meet the ends of justice.