IN RE: PAKKIRI SAHIB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment in C.A, No. 475 of 1977 on the file of the Sessions Judge, North Arcot.

(2.) THE accused was convicted under S. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I, for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month, on the ground that on 7th September, 1976 at about 7 P.M. near the Railway Institute at Arakkonam, the accused was found in unlawful possession of a railway property, namely, axle brass without being unable to give a satisfactory account for his possession of the same.

(3.) AGAINST that, the petitioner preferred an appeal in CIA. No. 475 of 1977, on the file of the Sessions Judge, North Arcor at Vellore. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. It is against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Vellore, the petitioner herein has preferred the above Criminal Revision case. The counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have violated flagrantly the points of law. He argued before me that the confessional statement, Ex.P3, recorded. by P.W.I in the presence of P.W.6, is inadmissible under S. 25 of the Evidence Act. While the argument was going on, the learned Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the lower appellate Court are contrary to law, for, the statute, S. 3 of Central Act 29 of 1966, clearly enjoins upon the Court, that the sentence of imprisonment for the first offence is for a term which may extend to five years or with fine, and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment by the Court such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The Public Prosecutor contends that the courts below have flagrantly violated this aspect. The Public Prosecutor cannot at this stage contend this argument because the State has not preferred either an appeal or revision against the judgment of the Court below praying for enhancement of the sentence.