[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Siji vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:12726
Crl.R.P.No.2936/2005
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2936 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2005 IN CRL.A NO.530 OF
2005 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2005 IN CC NO.1019 OF 1996 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
SIJI,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.DIVAKARAN,
THUTHIYOOR DESOM,
KAKKANAD
BY ADV SRI.P.F.FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
(S.I.OF POLICE E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION)
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12726
Crl.R.P.No.2936/2005
-:2:-
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Ernakulam, and the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in
C.C.No.1019/1996 & Crl.A.No.530/2005, respectively, convicting the
petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 419, 420 & 468
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'),
are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the first accused in
the said case.
2. The prosecution case relates to a loan fraud perpetrated by
the petitioner herein and four others upon the KSFE. It is alleged that
the petitioner herein moved an application for a loan for the purchase of
TV and stabilizer, before the KSFE Hire Purchase Unit, Ernakulam, on
18.01.1995, impersonating himself as one M.A. Babu, with second and
third accused as guarantors. It is further alleged that even the second
and third accused signed the loan documents impersonating themselves
as the fourth and fifth accused. The matter came to light pursuant to a
dispute between the accused in sharing the unjust enrichment they
gained from the aforesaid loan fraud.
2026:KER:12726
3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and brought on record 15 documents as
Exts P1 to P15. Four defence documents were marked as Exts D1 to D4.
It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate
arrived at the finding that the petitioner and the second accused
committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 & 468 IPC.
Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences under Sections
419, 420 & 468 IPC. A default clause of simple imprisonment for two
months each was provided for non-payment of fines. Though the
petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Sessions Court,
Ernakulam, in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction
awarded by the Trial Court. However, the sentence was modified to
rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of
the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 468 IPC. The substantial
sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently. An amount
of Rs.13,000/- out of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the
de facto complainant. It is aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts
below that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this
Court.
2026:KER:12726
4. Since there was consecutive non representation on the part
of the petitioner, this Court appointed Adv. Mrs. Amrin Fathima, as
Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. Before the Trial Court, PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW7 gave evidence
in clear and consistent terms on the basis of Exts P1, P5 & P6 documents
about the act of the petitioner availing loan from the KSFE Hire Purchase
Unit, Ernakulam, by resorting to cheating and impersonation. The KSFE
is said to have suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.18,400/- due to the
aforesaid criminal act committed by the petitioner. The Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court subjected the above evidence adduced by the
witnesses to meticulous analysis and concluded that the prosecution has
successfully established the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 468 IPC
charged against the petitioner. It is not possible for this Court, in
exercise of its revisional powers to unsettle the above concurrent findings
on facts of the courts below.
7. As regards the sentence awarded, it is seen that the
Appellate Court has rightly reduced the tenure of rigorous imprisonment
to six months each and enhanced the fine to Rs.5,000/- each for the
2026:KER:12726
commission of each of the aforesaid offences. The aforesaid sentence
awarded by the Appellate Court, is perfectly reasonable and
commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed by the
petitioner. Thus, there is absolutely no scope for interference in revision
upon the findings of the Appellate Court in the judgment rendered on
05.10.2005 in Crl.A.No.530/2005. Accordingly, I find no merit in this
revision petition.
In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance
rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. Mrs. Amrin Fathima in
addressing the various legal aspects on this matter.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
