YAKOOB KUNJU, S/O. ALIYARKUNJU, PAINUMOOTTIL HOUSE, VALLIKKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 338/1996 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva. The prosecution was under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused, who was working as a Guard in the KSRTC garage, stole articles belonging to the KSRTC. He was apprehended by the police in possession of the articles. The Police charge sheeted the petitioner and brought him to trial. In the trial, the witnesses identified the articles as belonging to the KSRTC. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offences charged against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for each of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. But the sentence was directed to run concurrently. Challenging the judgment of the Magistrate, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 112/2001 before the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition challenging the orders of the lower courts. On a reading of the grounds in the revision petition, I find that what the petitioner challenges is the correctness of the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts.

(2.) I have considered the matter in detail. The investigating officer deposed before the court that the petitioner was apprehended with articles in his possession while he was standing by the side of the road in a waiting shed near to the KSRTC garage. At the police station, the officers of the KSRTC identified the articles as belonging to the KSRTC. The officers were also examined as witnesses, who affirmed before the court that the articles belong to the KSRTC. On going through the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts, I am unable to find any perversity whatsoever in the appreciation of evidence. Without finding perversity in the appreciation of evidence I will not be justified in exercising my jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Crl. R.P. and accordingly, the same is dismissed.