BABU RAGHUNATH NAIK Vs. TEREZINHA PACHECO FARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Babu Raghu-nath Naik - was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vasco-da-Gama, of theft of a cocount tree under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for fifteen days and a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for ten days. This sentence, in appeal, was reduced by the learned Sessions Judge to a term of three days R. L with a fine of Rs. 50/- as, in his opinion, this sentence would meet the ends of justice. The petitioner felt aggrieved and moved this Court in revision under Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the petitioner removed the cocount tree belonging to the complainant (Mrs. Terezinha Pacheco Faria) and utilised it for the purposes of the construction of his cottage. This removal was with dishonest intention without the consent of the complainant. The defence of the petitioner that he purchased this tree for Rs. 15/- from the complainant was disbelieved by the learned Magistrate and also by the learned Sessions Judge. There are concurrent findings of Fact that the petitioner committed theft. Shri Pawooskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the evidence of theft has not been properly appreciated. The concurrent findings are based on evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for.

(3.) As regards the sentence modified by the learned Sessions Judge, I think there is a good case for interference in revision in the exercise of powers vested in this Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Normally, such interference would not be justified but in view of the proved facts in this case I am tempted to set right the sentence on the ground of propriety. In all crimes a very wide discretion in the matter of sentence is allowed to the Trial and Appellate Courts. The exercise of this discretion is a matter of prudence and not of law. It may be asked what is the object of punishment? The object is prevention of crime and every punishment is intended to have a double effect, namely to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act and also to prevent others from committing similar crimes.