BY AD vs SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANGEETHARAJ N.R. PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 -2- G. GIRISH, J. ----------------------------- Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.715 of 1999 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. He faced prosecution for the commission of the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. After evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 8, and the documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P15, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offences and was convicted for the same. The petitioner was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for one month each, and a fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the commission of offences under Sections 471 and 420 IPC. For non-payment of fine, a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months was prescribed by the learned Magistrate. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 468 IPC. The charge against the 2nd accused Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 -3- was abated due to his death during the pendency of the case before the Trial Court. Though the petitioner preferred appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, vide judgment dated

27.01.2006 in Crl.A.No.229 of 2005, confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / 1st accused and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.

3. As per the prosecution case, the defacto complainant (PW1) lost his cheque book at Vennikulam bus stop on 15.04.1997. He complained about the loss of the above cheque book before the Bank concerned only on 06.05.1997. By that time, it was found that an amount of Rs.4,000/- was withdrawn on 21.04.1997, Rs.25,000/- on 24.04.1997 and Rs.15,000/- on 03.05.1997, making use of the lost cheque leaves of PW1. However, when PW3 attempted to encash the fourth cheque for Rs.400/- on 16.07.1997, the Bank officials detained him and the matter was reported to the police. Upon investigation, it Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 -4- was revealed that PW3 had presented the aforesaid cheque before the Bank as per the instructions of PW4. PW4 revealed to the investigating agency that he was asked to present the cheque for the encashment by the 1st accused. The other three cheques were found to have been encashed by the 2nd accused, who allegedly shared common intention with the 1st accused for indulging in the aforesaid offence. The investigating agency, on the basis of the information received from the 1st accused, had recovered the cheque book from his house. It is on the basis of the aforesaid facts revealed during investigation that the investigating agency had filed the Final Report against accused Nos.1 and 2, alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences.

4. The Trial Court, after a detailed analysis of the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 8, arrived at the finding that the offences alleged against the petitioner had been established. The aforesaid finding of the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 -5- the case of the prosecution regarding the act of the petitioner forging the signature of PW1 by looking into Ext.P7 letter, is apparently baseless, since there is no signature seen in Ext.P7. The learned counsel also submitted that the course adopted by the investigating agency not proceeding against PWs 3 and 4 for the commission of the offences alleged in this case, is also suspicious. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the failure on the part of the defacto complainant / PW1 to complain before the police about the loss of cheque leaves, and the encashment of the amount by somebody else, immediately after the fraud was detected, also has to be taken as a circumstance to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution case.

6. It is true that Ext.P7 letter does not contain the signature of PW1. But, the question as to how the accused managed to forge the signature of PW1 in the cheque leaves and got it encashed, is not of much significance while adjudicating the culpability of the 1st accused. So also, the non-inclusion of PWs 3 and 4 in the array of accused, and the delay of a few months in preferring a complaint Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 -6- before the police, cannot be projected as reasons to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court, pointing to the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at the correct finding that the petitioner had committed the offence alleged in this case. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the commission of the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC by the courts below, is not liable to be interfered with.

7. On going through the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, it is seen that only minimum punishment was awarded for the offences proved in this case. The imprisonment awarded for the offences under Sections 471 and 420 IPC is only Simple Imprisonment for one month each. For the offence under Section 468 IPC, no separate sentence was awarded. The learned Magistrate had further directed that the sentence shall run concurrently. That means that the maximum tenure of Simple Imprisonment, which the petitioner had to undergo for the offences alleged in this case is only one month. Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged in this case, I am Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006 -7- of the view that the aforesaid sentence cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court on the question of sentence also, which has been upheld by the Appellate Court. As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in this case. Resultanly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- G. GIRISH JUDGE