V.J.Sunny@Chakko vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 14194 Ker

Kerala High Court

V.J.Sunny@Chakko vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
           WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                         CRL.REV.PET NO. 564 OF 2024
AGAINST     THE   JUDGMENT   DATED   04.01.2024   IN   CRA    NO.24    OF   2018   OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY ARISING
OUT   OF    THE   JUDGMENT   DATED   18.01.2018   IN   CC    NO.2509   OF   2014   OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUTHUPARAMBA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

               V.J.SUNNY @ CHAKKO
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O. CHAKKO, RESIDING AT VATHILIKKUNNEL HOUSE,
               THONDIYIL P.O, VELLARVALLI, KANNUR DISTRICT,
               PIN - 670560

               BY ADVS.
               RESHMA E.
               ATHEENA ANTONY
               ANJITHA SANTHOSH



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINAT:

               STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:

               PP SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R




      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.564 of 2024
                                           2

                                      ORDER

It is against the judgment of conviction for the

offence punishable under Section 17 and 18(A) of the

Kerala Money Lenders Act, the accused came up aggrieved

by the order of sentence. It is submitted that there is

no sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment of

conviction, but the sentence awarded is excessive.

Special reason was also brought to the notice of this

court that there is no bad antecedent reported against

the accused and it is the first time offence alleged

against him. Certain documents were seized from the

custody of the accused, which would sufficiently show

that he was engaged in the business of money lending.

Out of 12 persons, four persons turned hostile to the

prosecution. Others concurred with the prosecution case

and had given oral evidence in tune with the prosecution

case. But, being a first time offender, it is not

advisable to impose larger sentence by way of

substantive sentence. Being a first time offender, it

would be a special reason to modify the sentence to the

minimum. Hence, the substantive sentence ordered for

three months will stand set aside by ordering a fine

amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) for the

offence punishable under Section 17 of the Money Lending

Act and another amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section

18 (A) of the Act with default sentence of one month

and two weeks simple imprisonment respectively.

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed

in part by modifying the sentence as above.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE sv