Jinto Joseph vs State of Kerala

V. Ramkumar, J.—Petitioner who was the accused in C.C. Nos. 337 , 338, 383 and 384 of 2006 and C.C. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of J.F.C.M., Ettumanoor and C.C. 484 of 2006 on the file of J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam, seeks a direction u/s 427 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the sentence passed against the petitioner in all the above six cases shall run concurrently.

The petitioner was the common first accused in C.C. Nos. 337, 338, 383 and 384 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Ettumanoor. The petitioner was the 2nd accused in C.C. 1 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Ettumanoor. He was the first accused in C.C. 484 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam. All the above cases were theft cases. The property involved in C.C. No. 337 of 2006 is a gold chain weighing 1 > sovereigns and worth Rs. 11000/- snatched from the body of P.W.1 therein (Annakutty Joseph) while she was walking along the road. The property involved in C.C. No. 338 of 2006 is a Scorpio Car worth Rs. 6,00,000/-. The property involved in C.C. No. 383 of 2006 is a Maruti Car worth Rs. 40,000/-. The property involved in C.C. No. 384 of 2006 is again a gold chain weighing 16.400 gms worth Rs. 14,000/- snatched from the body of the first informant in that case. The property involved in C.C. No. 1 of 2007 is again a gold chain weighing 12.500 grams worn by the woman examined as P.W.2 in that case. The property involved in C.C. 484 of 2006 is a gold chain owned by the first informant who is another woman.

The claim of the petitioner that he pleaded guilty in all the aforesaid six criminal cases is a false claim. Annexures I to 6 judgments in the above cases show that the petitioner had pleaded guilty only in C .C. 338 of 2006 and C.C. 1 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Ettumanoor and C.C. No. 484 of 2006 on the file of J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam and he did not plead guilty in the remaining three cases. No doubt, on the assertion made by the petitioner that he was below the age of 19 years at the time of occurrence in the aforesaid six cases, this Court called for the report of the District Probation Officer, Kottayam and as per report dated 23-3-2008 the District Probation Officer has stated that he was involved in six criminal cases within a short span of life , that all the above cases were theft cases, that he was below the age of 20 years at the time of occurrence in those cases and that he admitted all the offences. The Probation Officer has also recommended that the petitioner''s case is a suitable one to be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and that he may be released u/s 4(1) and 4(3) of the said Act. The very fact that the District Probation Officer has also blindly accepted the statement of the petitioner and his family members to the effect that the petitioner pleaded guilty in all the cases, shows the non-application of mind by the District Probation Officer. If the District Probation Officer had cared to verify the judgments of the trial court it would have been revealed that the petitioner had pleaded guilty only in three cases namely C.C. No. 338 of 2006 and C.C. No. 1 of 2007 of J.F.C.M., Ettumanoor and C.C. No. 484 of 2006 of J.F.C.M. III, Kottayam. In all the six cases the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is simple imprisonment for one year each.

In Ammavasal and Anr. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Valliyannoor AIR 2000 SC 3544 relied on by the petitioner the Hon''ble Supreme Court was inclined to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. for giving concurrence to the accused therein taking note of the fact that if he was not given the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. the convict may have to undergo 28 years in jail. But that is not the position with regard to the petitioner herein.

In M.R. Kuduva v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 568 the Apex court held that when neither the trial Court nor the High court had exercised jurisdiction u/s 427 Cr.P.C. while passing the judgment , the inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. could not exercised in an independent proceeding by the High court for the sole purpose of giving the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

Considering the involvement of the petitioner in six different crimes which were committed in a daring manner, I am not inclined to give him the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C., particularly when the petitioner is guilty of stating falsehood before this Court by contending that he had pleaded guilty in all the six cases.

This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.