(1.) THE petitioner in this Crl. R.P is the third accused in C.C. No. 184/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - II, Thamarassery. The prosecution case is as follows:
(2.) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
(3.) THE prosecution case is that the petitioner along with the 2nd accused sold scrap rubber to PW5 at his shop. PW6, who was the adjacent shop owner testified to the fact that he was a witness to the seizure and he identified the petitioner as the one who sold the scrap rubber. The owner of the rubber sheets and scrap rubber gave evidence to the effect that the rubber sheets and scrap rubber seized from the shop of PW5 was his own. The cross examination of neither PW6 nor the de facto complainant resulted in anything to discredit their testimony. The evidence has been elaborately discussed both by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. I am satisfied that after going through the evidence, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt, particularly in view of illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction entered by the courts below. This Court had called for a report from the Probation Officer, Kozhikode. A report has been forwarded by the Probation Officer who did not recommend invocation of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the petitioner since he did not receive any report from the District Probation Officer, Kannur. No previous case against the third accused has been noted therein. It is specifically stated that he has wife and two children. The petitioner's family is in very indigent circumstances. It is stated that his eldest daughter is suffering from epilepsy and his second son also has a very serious recurring ailment, for which no permanent cure has been found yet.