Revision petitioner was the third accused in C.C No.524/1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kochi. Prosecution case is that accused 1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 I.P.C and the 3rd accused committed an offence punishable under Section 414 I.P.C.
2. Prosecution case, in short is that PW1 locked up his house on 08-05-1997 and went away. On 09-05-1997 morning, it was noticed by PW2 that the house was broken open and certain valuable items such as T.V set, tape recorder, mixie, gold ornaments, cash etc. were pilfered from the house. Thereafter, a case was registered and after investigation, a charge was filed before the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate tried the case by examining 13 witnesses on the side of the prosecution and marking Exts.P1 to P14. Material objects are MO's 1 and 2. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the revision petitioner along with another accused. Aggrieved by the conviction, he preferred Crl.Appeal No.79/2000 before the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record, confirmed the conviction awarded by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. From the proceedings, it is seen that for the last five consecutive posting dates, there was no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. I have carefully perused the records.
4. Prosecution case is that the revision petitioner voluntarily assisted in disposing of the stolen property which he knows to be a stolen property. It is further alleged that the revision petitioner dishonestly received the stolen property knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property.
5. Courts below considered the evidence on record and found that the revision petitioner knowingly received the stolen property. PW13, the Investigating Officer arrested the revision petitioner and while in custody, he gave Ext.P12 confession statement. That confession led to the discovery of ingot from a jewellery at Kodungallore. On the basis of the confession statement, police recovered MO2 ingot from the said jewellery, run by PW7. Ext.P3 is the mahazar evidencing recovery of the material objects. It was the definite version of PW13 at the time of evidence that PW7 informed him that the gold was purchased from the revision petitioner. Although PW's 7 and 8 deposed that they produced MO2 before the police as directed by the Circle Inspector, no reason was made out for producing the gold, if it was not a stolen property. It is also noted by the lower appellate court that the stock register mandatorily to be kept in a jewellery was not produced by PW7 or PW8 to show that they legitimately obtained MO2 ingot gold. Considering the totality of evidence, the court below found that the revision petitioner is liable to be punishable under Section 414 I.P.C as he knowingly received the stolen property. On a perusal of the records and on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, I find that there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment. Hence the revision has to fail. The revision petition is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True copy// P.A to Judge