Kerala High Court
Krishnankutty vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2025
Crl.R.P.No.453/2016 1
2025:KER:45225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 453 OF 2016
CRIME NO.259/2005 OF Museum Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.63 OF 2014
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT-V,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF CC NO.176 OF 2008 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
REVISION PETITIONER:
KRISHNANKUTTY
S/O.PONANAN, CHIRATHALAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, WARD
NO.4, SHIVANKOIL BALARAMAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 23.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.453/2016 2
2025:KER:45225
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------.
Crl.R.P. No. 453 of 2016
---------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC
No.176/2008 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. He stood trial, for committing the
offences punishable under Sections 468 & 471 of I.P.C., before
that court and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. The
appeal preferred by the accused, as Criminal Appeal
No.63/2014, was allowed in part by the Additional District &
Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapauram, by modifying the
sentence.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows;
During the period 1997, 1998 and 1999, the accused took
9 Kisan Vikas Pathras of Rs.10,000/- each from the post office
and encashed them in the year 2001 and 2002. Prior to the
2025:KER:45225
encashment, he forged another 9 certificates bearing the same
number and for the same value and, pledged them before Bank
of India, Balaramapuram Branch and availed a loan of
Rs.67,500/- on 28/9/2001. When a default occurred in the
payment of the loan amount, the bank sent the said certificates
pledged by the accused for encashment to the post office
where, the forgery committed by the accused was detected.
3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution PW1
to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 documents were
marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. From the
side of the accused, Ext.D1 document was marked. The trial
court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the
accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 468 and 471
IPC. It sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- under Section 468 IPC., and rigorous imprisonment
2025:KER:45225
for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section
471 IPC., both with a default clause.
4. As stated earlier, the appeal preferred by the
accused was allowed in part by modifying the sentence and the
accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years in each count and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months in each count.
5. During the pendency of this revision petition, the
revision petitioner died and a memo to this effect dated
17/6/2025 was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Adv.Sarin
Panickar, who was appearing for the revision petitioner, made
submissions before this Court as Amicus Curiae. Heard Adv.
Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
6. Adv.Sarin Panickar submitted that even if the entire
evidence adduced by the prosecution is accepted in toto, no
conviction under Sections 468 and 478 IPC is sustainable. He
submitted that PW3, the Assistant Manager of Bank of India,
2025:KER:45225
who was examined from the side of the prosecution, does not
have any direct knowledge about the transaction. He also
submitted that the accused had no fraudulent or dishonest
intention to cheat the bank and taking photo copies of the
original will not amount to forgery. He further submitted that no
loss has been caused to anyone, since the accused has cleared
the liability.
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported
the impugned judgments and contended that there are no
grounds to interfere with them.
8. The materials on record show that the trial court and
the appellate court have relied upon the evidence of PW1 to
PW5 to reach the finding of guilt against the accused. The
evidence of PW1, who was the Assistant Post Master, Vigilance,
Thiruvananthapuram, and who laid Ext.P1 complaint, is to the
effect that she has received a letter from the Senior
Superintendent of Post Office, North Division in respect of 9
Kisan Vikas Pathras produced before the Museum Post Office,
2025:KER:45225
and on verification, she found that all of them bearing the said
numbers have already been encashed earlier. She stated Ext.P2
series are the original certificates, which were thus encashed,
and Ext.P3 series are the forged certificates received from the
Bank of India, which contains an endorsement that the same
were pledged before the Bank on 28.9.2001. The evidence of
PW2 and PW4, who are the officials attached to the Museum
Post Office, would reveal that Ext.P3 series were received from
Bank of India, Balaramapuram Branch and on verification, they
found that all the said certificates had already been encashed
on the basis of Ext.P2 series, which are its original. Thus, from
the evidence of these witnesses, it can be seen that Ext.P3
series were received from the Bank of India, Balaramapuram
Branch by the Post Master in the Post Office and that the said
documents are not originally issued from there but are forged
certificates.
9. Moving ahead, the evidence of PW3 and PW5, the
Managers of Bank of India would reveal that the accused has
2025:KER:45225
availed a loan by pledging Ext.P3 series certificates and that
when a default occurred, they had sent these documents for
encashment to the Museum Post Office. Their evidence also
reveal that it is the accused who had pledged Ext.P3 series
certificates for availing the loan as if they are original Kisan
Vikas Pathras. The evidence of PW10 coupled with Ext.P10 loan
application also confirms the fact that the accused has availed a
loan by pledging the Nine certificates purported to be the
original Kisan Vikas Pathras issued from the post office. From
the afore discussions, it can be safely held that it is the accused
who has forged Ext.P3 series and has used it as genuine and
obtained loan from the Bank. Both the trial court and the
appellate court have not committed any error/illegality in
appreciating the evidence on record and arriving at a finding of
guilt against the accused.
10. Now, coming to the question of sentence,
considering the nature of the offences, its gravity and the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the
2025:KER:45225
appellate court has imposed only a just and proper sentence on
the accused and, therefore, no interference is required with the
same also.
Ergo I find that, this revision petition lacks merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
