Kerala High Court

Mani vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 2025

                                                 2025:KER:28145
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1386 of 2006

                                -1-



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

 WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                   CRL.REV.PET NO.1386 OF 2006

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2006 IN Crl.A NO.229 OF
    2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM
  CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2005 IN CC NO.715 OF
  1999 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:

             MANI
             S/O KOCHAL, PUTHUMANAKAROTTA VEETTIL,
             MARIYAMANGALAM, THIRUVANIYOOR.

             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:
                                                     2025:KER:28145
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 2025:KER:28145

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 2025:KER:28145

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 2025:KER:28145

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 2025:KER:28145

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 2025:KER:28145

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.