SABASTIAN YESUDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision numbered as above was taken on file on a petition sent from jail by a convict namely, Sebastian @ Yesudas, who is undergoing sentence imposed in various cases for different terms. He has sent the petition requesting for setting aside his conviction or in the alternative to allow him to undergo concurrently the sentences imposed, in four cases, C.C.Nos. 541/1998, 802/1998, 874/1998 and 875/1998 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. In all the aforesaid cases, after separate trial, he has been convicted of similar offences, as under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. In C.C.No. 874 of 1998, on his conviction, the Magistrate has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and six months under Section 461 of the IPC. Set off was allowed to him from 12-8-2002 till the date of the judgment, 26-11-2002. Sentences were directed to be undergone consecutively. His appeal Crl.A.No. 902 of 2002 from the above case was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge with the modification of allowing him to undergo the sentences imposed concurrently. In C.C.No. 875 of 1998, on his conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC with direction to undergo the sentences consecutively. Set off was declined holding that his detention during trial was not in connection with that case. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 461 of the IPC. His appeal, Crl.A.No. 246 of 2003 against the conviction in the above case was turned down affirming the sentence also with the modification of allowing him to undergo the sentences imposed concurrently. In C.C. No. 541 of 1998, the Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC directing him to undergo such sentences concurrently. Set-off was allowed to him for the period from 29-7-1997 to 9-12-1998 in the above case. He was found not guilty of the offence under Section 461 of the IPC in the above case and acquitted of that offence. The appeal preferred by him against the conviction in the above case numbered as Crl. A. No. 191 of 2004 was turned down by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who affirmed the conviction and also sentence without modification. In C.C. No. 802 of 1998, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and one year for the offence under Section 461 of the IPC with direction to undergo the sentences concurrently. No set-off was allowed in this case. His appeal, Crl. A. No. 193 of 2004 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) A common revision in respect of four cases is not entertainable as separate revision in each case is the rule. However, taking note that the petitioner is a convict and the petition has been sent by him from jail, to canvass the reliefs urged for in respect of more than one case, I find, a disposal of his petition numbered as a revision and taken as such on merits not adhering to strict technical rules is called for to meet the ends of justice. So much so, I have considered the revision on its merits.

(3.) A counsel on State Brief, namely, Adv. Sri Thomstine K. Augustine was appointed to address arguments on the revision numbered on the petition by the aforesaid convict.