Kerala High Court
Sadanandan vs The State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2025
2025:KER:70148
Crl.R.P.No.1559 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1559 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2017 IN Crl.A NO.65 OF
2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DIVISION ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2017 IN CC NO.507 OF 2012 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SADANANDAN
AGED 56
YEARS,S/O(LATE)KITTA,PULLANATHU(HOUSE),PATTOTTHU
PARAMBA,ADITH STORE,NORTH OF HI-LITE ROYAL CREST
APARTMENTS,CHULLIYODU ROAD,CIVIL STATION,
(P.O),KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N -PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARED
ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70148
Crl.R.P.No.1559 of 2017
2
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is
the conviction and sentence rendered against the
revision petitioner under Section 420 of IPC
2. The revision petitioner is the sole
accused in C.C.No.507 of 2012 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. He
stood trial before that court in the afore case, for
committing the offences punishable under Sections 418,
420 and 422 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Beypore Service
Co-operative Bank, Arakkinar Branch on 07.09.2009 by
mortgaging a property which was already sold by him.
It is also alleged that thereafter, the accused
willfully refused to repay the loan amount and cheated
the bank, thereby causing a loss of Rs.1,81,290/-.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate
appreciation of the evidence on record, found the
2025:KER:70148
accused not guilty of committing the offences
punishable under Sections 418 and 422 of IPC and
acquitted him thereof. But it found the accused guilty
of committing of an offence punishable under Section
420 of IPC and convicted him thereunder. The accused
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 420 of IPC, with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal
by filing Crl.A.No.65 of 2017 before the Additional
Sessions Court-I, Kozhikode. The said court, by
judgment dated 09.08.2017, allowed the appeal in part
and while upholding the conviction, modified and
reduced the sentence to one of simple imprisonment for
a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
with a default clause.
6. Heard Jeswin P.Varghese, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and the Smt.Maya
M.N, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
2025:KER:70148
7. An appraisal of the materials on record
show that both the trial court and appellate court
have placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of PW1,
the then Secretary of Beypore Service Co-operative
Bank in order to find the guilt of the accused. PW1
deposed that the accused approached the bank and
availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, by producing
concocted documents. He would say that the accused
thus submitted Ext.P3 title deed, Ext.P6 possession
certificate, Ext.P10 basic tax receipt, Ext.P7
encumbrance certificate etc. along with Ext.P9 loan
application and availed the loan on 07.09.2004. Later,
when the accused committed default in paying the
amount and when enquiries were made, it was revealed
that a major portion of the property mortgaged was
already sold by the accused, prior to creating
mortgage with the bank.
8. Ext.P9 is the loan application and it
shows that the accused has specifically stated that
the extent of property with respect to which the
2025:KER:70148
equitable mortgage is created is 20½ cents. The
evidence of PW6 and PW7 coupled with Exts.P14 and P15
shows that the accused has sold 6.4 cents and 9¾ cents
of land from out of the 20½ cent to PW6 and PW7
respectively, as early as on 29.06.2004 i.e., much
before the mortgage. Further, it has come out in the
evidence of PW3 that it is as per the instructions of
the accused, he had filled up the application for
obtaining Ext.P7 encumbrance certificate and
thereafter, has obtained it and given it to the
accused. Ext.P7 admittedly does not mention about the
existence of the encumbrance at the time of mortgage.
Thus from the afore evidence, it can be seen that the
accused has already sold a major portion of the
property before mortgaging it to the bank and thereby,
has dishonestly induced the bank to part with public
money. That apart, the non-payment of the loan amount
after availing the loan facility also clearly suggests
that the accused had a mala fide intention at the very
inception itself to make an unlawful gain to himself
2025:KER:70148
and cause unlawful loss to the bank. In the light of
the afore discussions, I find that there is no
illegality or irregularity in the appreciation of
evidence by the trial court or the appellate court and
in reaching its conclusions.
9. As regards the sentence imposed by the
appellate court, considering the nature of the
offence, its gravity, the fact that substantial public
money has been siphoned off by the accused and the
facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view
that the sentence imposed is only just and reasonable
and no interference is required with it also.
Ergo, I find no merit in this revision petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
scl
