Madhu vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 15889 Ker

Kerala High Court

Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

CRL.REV.PET NO. 530 OF 2024

                                       1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
         THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 530 OF 2024
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2023 IN CRA NO.100 OF 2020 OF III
          ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2020 IN CC NO.909 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL
                   MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             MADHU, AGED 33 YEARS,
             S/O, KANNAN, RESIDING AT NEAR AYYAPPANKAVU,
             NEAR KALLEKULANGARA,PALAKKAD TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678009
             BY ADV V.A.AJIVAS


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031


             PP SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 530 OF 2024

                                         2


                                      ORDER

In connection with the theft of mobile phone, a

crime was registered against the accused, alleging an

offence under Section 379 IPC. Both the trial court

and first appellate court found the accused guilty of

the said offence, convicted thereunder and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a

fine of Rs.5000/- by the first appellate court. It

is against the abovesaid judgment of conviction and

order of sentence, the accused came up.

2. The subject matter of the alleged theft was

released to the defacto complainant only after the

expiry of one year. The sentence awarded should

reflect a proper balance between the mitigating and

the aggravating circumstance. One bad antecedent was

also reported and this is the second-time offence.

Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence

and also by adopting reformative approach, it is fit

and proper to reduce the substantive sentence to the

period of detention already undergone right from CRL.REV.PET NO. 530 OF 2024

23.04.2016 to 09.09.2016. The fine amount will stand

enhanced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand

only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

four months.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed

in part accordingly by modifying the sentence as

above.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp