Courts may substitute a fine for imprisonment in theft cases while affirming conviction.

The prosecution alleged that three accused dishonestly removed the complainant’s Cruiser vehicle, registration No. KA-48/M-5448, from the compound of the PKPS Co-operative Society at Hunnur Village

The complainant reported the theft, and the police later seized the vehicle from accused No. 1

The trial court convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000; the case against accused No. 1 had abated following his death

Accused No. 2’s appeal was dismissed, and he brought this revision petition challenging the concurrent findings

1. Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision

2. Whether the sentence imposed on the petitioner should be modified in light of his personal circumstances and the circumstances of the case

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, criminalises theft and permits imprisonment of either description for up to three years, a fine, or both

The petition was brought under the revisional jurisdiction invoked under Sections 397 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Court considered whether the concurrent findings disclosed illegality or perversity calling for revisional interference

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the trial and appellate courts had assessed the prosecution evidence, including testimony concerning the seizure of the vehicle from accused No. 1 and the petitioner’s presence in the vehicle with him

It also noted that the petitioner had denied the allegations in his Section 313 CrPC examination but had not explained that he was unaware the vehicle was stolen

On that basis, it found no ground to disturb the concurrent conviction in revision

However, taking account of the petitioner’s background and the circumstances of the case, the Court considered a fine in place of imprisonment appropriate

As ₹5,000 had already been deposited, the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance of ₹30,000 within one month, failing which the trial court was directed to proceed according to law