N SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the judgments dated 8.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(F.T.C.III), Vridhachalam, in Criminal Appeal Nos.99, 101 and 100 of 2006 confirming the judgments dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in C.C.Nos.254, 256 and 255 of 2003, these criminal revision cases are focussed.

(2.) A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Criminal Revision petition would run thus:(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C., as against the accused for the following offences: TABLEInasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted.(b) On the side of the prosecution P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the accused's side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.(c) During the pendency of the above cases, the accused filed petition confessing their guilt. However, they pleaded for mercy and also sought their release on probation of good conduct. (d) The learned Magistrate, after conducting the trial gave a finding that the accused committed the offence and accordingly, recorded the convictions and imposed the sentences as under:TABLE(e) Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the judgements of the lower Court, the appeals in C.A.Nos.99, 101 and 100 of 2006 were preferred before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-III), Vridhachalam, which Court reduced the sentence as under:TABLE

(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether the revision petitioners/accused, in all the three matters, are entitled to be released on probation of good conduct and whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in the sentence imposed by the appellate Court.