[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2026
Crl. R.P. No. 38 of 2021 1
2026:KER:4137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 38 OF 2021
CRIME NO.751/2015 OF Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2020 IN Crl.A NO.177 OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2016 IN CC NO.2032 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
CHANDRAN, S/O.KESAVAN NADAR, RESIDING AT 9/290, LAKSHAM
VEEDU COLONY, KAKKATHOTTAM, PULLUVILA DESOM, KANJIRAMKULAM
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 526.
BY ADV SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.01.2026, THE COURT ON 19.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. R.P. No. 38 of 2021 2
2026:KER:4137
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No. 38 of 2021
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the first accused in CC No. 2032 of 2015
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Neyyattinkara and the
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 177 of 2016 on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The trial court convicted the accused persons for the offence
under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple
imprisonment for 8 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month, and the same was confirmed in appeal.
3. The prosecution case is that on 10.10.2015, at about 2 a.m.,
the accused persons committed theft of a goat belonging to PW1 and
transported the same in the autorickshaw driven by the revision
petitioner towards Olattimoodu junction and on getting information
regarding the theft, PW8, Grade Sub Inspector of Aryancodu Police
2026:KER:4137
Station who was on law and order patrol duty along with PWs 6 and 7,
chased the autorickshaw and intercepted the vehicle. The revision
petitioner was the driver of the autorickshaw and the other accused who
travelled inside the autorickshaw escaped from the scene. The police
arrested the revision petitioner and also seized the goat by preparing
mahazar at about 2.30 a.m. on 10.10.2015.
4. Heard Sri. Thirumala P. K. Mani, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the
revision petitioner has no knowledge regarding the theft and that he was
only the driver of the autorickshaw hired by the second accused and the
trial court and the appellate court committed grave illegality in rendering
a finding that the theft was jointly committed by the revision petitioner
and the other accused.
6. PW1 is the owner of the goat and his evidence shows that he
heard the bleating of his goat in between 2 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on
10.10.2015 and found that his goat is missing. The evidence of PW1
2026:KER:4137
shows that on hearing the noise, PWs 2 to 4 also came there and
immediately they went to the road and then they saw someone taking
the goat into an autorickshaw. The evidence of PW1 further shows that
they also chased the said autorickshaw and when they reached
Olattimoodu junction, the police party had already detained the first
accused and the autorickshaw.
7. The evidence of PW1 further shows that his goat was inside the
autorickshaw and the legs of the goat were tied. The evidence of PWs 2,
3 and 4 also corroborates the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence.
The evidence of PW8, Grade Sub Inspector of Aryancodu Police Station,
also shows that they chased the autorickshaw and intercepted the
vehicle at Olattimoodu junction.
8. It is in evidence that the revision petitioner herein was driving
the autorickshaw and the stolen goat was recovered from the
autorickshaw immediately after the occurrence. The trial court and the
appellate court elaborately analysed the evidence of the material
witnesses and arrived at a finding that the revision petitioner was caught
red handed with the stolen goat immediately after the occurrence and
2026:KER:4137
that too after chasing the autorickshaw in which the stolen goat was
transported. In the absence of any material contradiction or omission in
the evidence of the occurrence witnesses who supported the prosecution
case, the revisional court cannot interfere with the finding of fact
recorded by the trial court and the appellate court.
9. In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165], the
Honourable Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:
"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401
CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High
Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State
of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , while considering the scope of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following: (SCC
pp. 454-55, para 5)
"5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and
examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence
or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory
jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of
justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power
of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate
jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the
High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion
on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned
judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by
reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."
2026:KER:4137
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by
the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao
Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri)
19] . This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it
is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any
relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground
that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in para 14:
(SCC p. 135)
"14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the
view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-
consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order,
merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not
meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional
jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in
accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional
power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated
with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is
sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is
grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is
based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or
where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the
courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional
jurisdiction."
10. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460],
the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
"20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an
order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may
be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression
"prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited
one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a
court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction
2026:KER:4137
could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance
with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or
where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. ..."
11. It is well settled that revisional power is a type of supervisory
jurisdiction meant to rectify injustices and it is not the same as the
appellate jurisdiction, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in State
of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452].
The revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless there are
glaring indications of a grave injustice or a blatant violation of the law.
12. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or
infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in revision.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
