[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.P.Nidhish vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4052 OF 2006
Crl.A NO.24 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT
(ADHOC), MANJERI
CC NO.1059 OF 2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
K.P.NIDHISH
S/O.NANU NAMBIAR,
KOLAVILPULORI HOUSE, SREENIGHT,
KATHIROOR AMSOM AND DESOM, THALASSERI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
CIRCLE INSPECTOR TIRUR POLICE,
(KOTTAKKAL P.S.CRIME NO.368 OF 2002),
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
SRI SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.ATHIRA KS, AMICUS CURIAE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15342
Crl.R.P No.4052 of 2006
2
ORDER
The concurrent conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, and the Additional Sessions
Court, Manjeri, in CC No.1059/2002 and Crl.Appeal No.24/2004
respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission
of offence under Section 381 IPC, are under challenge in this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who was the store
keeper of the office of the Mathrubhumi Daily at Kottakkal, committed
theft of news print reels on 19.08.2002 and 25.08.2002 with the help of
the 3rd accused, who was the security staff associated with the above
establishment, and the 2nd accused, who was the friend of the petitioner.
The value of the stolen item is said to be Rs.15,000/-. In connection with
the above offence, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tirur, laid the Final
Report before the learned Magistrate.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, 22 witnesses were
examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW22 and 15
documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P15. MO1 series and MO2 series
were identified as material objects. From the part of the
2026:KER:15342
petitioner/accused, 2 witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and one
document was marked as Ext.D1. After the evaluation of the aforesaid
evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner herein guilty of
commission of the offence under Section 381 IPC, while the other two
accused were found not guilty. The petitioner was accordingly convicted
and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine
Rs.5000/- with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months.
Though the petitioner challenged the above verdict in appeal, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to
interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the
appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by
the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts
below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.
4. Since there was no representation from the part of the
revision petitioner on repeated posting dates, notice was issued to the
revision petitioner intimating the posting of the case. Still, the revision
petitioner did not choose to appear before the Court or to make
arrangements for advancing arguments. In the above circumstances,
Adv.Athira K.S, was appointed as Amicus Curie to represent the revision
2026:KER:15342
petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of
Kerala.
6. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy
reliance upon the evidence of PW4, who had been conducting an
establishment by name 'Fathima Traders, Thirurangadi', to which the
petitioner herein had sold the stolen news print reels. The above witness
had stated before the Trial Court in categorical terms that the petitioner
had repeatedly contacted him in connection with the sale of the above
stolen items, and that he happened to purchase the same without
knowing that it has been stolen from the establishment where the
petitioner had been working. Though the petitioner had adduced defence
evidence through the examination of DW2 to show that a person who had
acted as an intermediary in the aforesaid sale was not aware of any such
transaction, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court refused to
accept the aforesaid evidence of DW2. The contention of the petitioner
that he was only an apprentice trainee, and had no responsibility with the
store, was also rejected by the courts below by relying on the evidence of
2026:KER:15342
PW1, who stated that Apprentice Clerks are put in charge of the stores as
Store Keepers. The concurrent findings on facts of the courts below by
relying on the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution, cannot be
interfered by this Court in exercise of the revisional powers under Section
397 Cr.P.C. Needless to say, the conviction of the petitioner for the
commission of offence under Section 381 IPC by the courts below is not
liable to be set aside.
7. The Trial Court has awarded punishment of Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.5000/- for the offence committed
by the petitioner. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence,
and also the other relevant facts and circumstances including the lapse of
about more than 23 years from the date of occurrence of the Crime, I am
of the view that the aforesaid punishment is liable to be reduced to Simple
Imprisonment for three months, while retaining the fine portion as such.
Subject to the above modifications in the sentence, the revision stands
disposed of as follows:
1) The concurrent findings of the courts below,
convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under
Section 381 IPC, are hereby confirmed.
2026:KER:15342
2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the
courts below, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine
Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with a default clause
of Simple Imprisonment for one month.
The Registry shall transmit the relevant case records, along with a
copy of this order, to the Trial Court forthwith for enforcing the revised
sentence.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP
2026:KER:15342
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 4052 OF 2006
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure 1 APPELLATE COURT'S JUDGMENT DATED 21/07/2006
IN CRL.APPL NO.24 OF 2004 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE(ADHOC-1) COURT,MALAPPURAM.
Annexure 2 TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT DATED 12/12/2003 IN CC
NO.1059 OF 2002 OF JFCM COURT,MALAPPURAM
