PEDRU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the accused in C. C. No. 60 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Magistrate at Fort Cochin. All the four accused in that case stood charged with having committed the offences punishable under

(2.) One of the points urged on behalf of the revision petitioners is that the lower courts erred in relying solely on the report of the District Probation Officer, Shoranur and holding that there was a previous conviction against the first accused for the offence of gambling. I think that this objection has to prevail. No such report received behind the back of the accused could be used as evidence against them. The Probation Officer has not been examined in the rase and his report has not been formally proved. No other record also has been produced to prove the alleged previous conviction as against the first accused. All the same, the fact that there is no proof about such previous conviction against the first accused cannot by itself vitiate the conviction entered against him in the present case. The sustainability of such conviction must necessarily depend on the sufficiency of the evidence on record in this case.

(3.) Regarding the sufficiency and the reliability of the prosecution evidence against the accused, the lower courts have concurrently found that the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 is trustworthy and the acts alleged against the accused have been clearly proved by the evidence of these witnesses supported by the documentary evidence in the case. It was urged on behalf of the revision petitioners that the lower courts have not considered the evidence against each of the accused and have not recorded findings as to the specific acts committed by each of them. I see no force in this contention. In Para.4 and 5 of the Sub-Magistrates judgment he has discussed the prosecution evidence as against each of the accused and has referred to the specific acts committed by each of them and the finding that they were guilty of the offence under S.323 was passed on such an appreciation of the evidence. It was mainly on the strength of that finding that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted the first accused under S.323 and passed the order under S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as against the remaining accused. In the appeal also the learned Sessions Judge has in Para.2 of his judgment independently considered the evidence against each of the accused and has come to the conclusion that the specific acts alleged against each of them have been proved. Both the courts have made special mention of the evidence of Pw. 4, a respectable and independent witness and have stated that the evidence of this witness fully corroborates the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3.