AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor heard forthwith.
By this revision application, the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2010 dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order dated 30th July, 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 344/S/2009/III.
The applicant was tried for having committed an offence punishable u/s 379 of I.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, First Class in above criminal case. The charge against the accused was that he had committed theft of Dio Scooter on the night of 20th September, 2008 belonging to informant Antoneta Pereira-PW1. Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant/ accused for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the applicant is a young man of 32 years having no criminal background, the applicant deserves to be released on probation u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (''The Act'' for short).
Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent submitted that having regard to the manner in which the offence is committed and the fact that the colour of the vehicle was changed by the applicant who is a painter, the applicant does not deserve to be given benefit of Section 3 of the Act.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which the applicant deserves to be given benefit of Section 3 of the Act. However, considering the fact that the applicant is a young man of 32 years having no criminal record, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves leniency in so far as sentence is concerned. In my opinion, the interest of justice would be served by reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year to three months and by awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/-in favour of the informant - Antoneta Pereira-PW1.
Accordingly, conviction of the applicant recorded by both the Courts below is maintained. However, sentence imposed on the applicant by the learned Magistrate, which has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, is reduced to three months simple imprisonment. The applicant shall also pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-to the informant-Antoneta Pereira-PW1. The applicant shall deposit the compensation in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao. After the same is deposited, the learned Magistrate shall pay the compensation to the informant. In the event, the applicant does not pay compensation, the applicant shall undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Needless to mention that the applicant is entitled to set off the period of detention already undergone in terms of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure
The revision stands disposed of accordingly.