N.G. AJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C No.1371/2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Ernakulam. On a charge under Section 420 IPC, on the allegation that he and three others received amount from the Pallithazhath People's Urban Co -operative Bank by pledging spurious of gold ornaments, the revision petitioner faced prosecution along with the other accused. All the four accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the trial court under Section 420 IPC. Pending the prosecution, the accused Nos.3 and 4 remitted the amount due from them. The prosecution examined five witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P34 documents and MO1 to MO18 material objects.

(2.) ON an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found all the four accused guilty. On conviction under Section 420 IPC, the first accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 3,000/ -. The revision petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay of fine of 3,000/ -. On a consideration that the accused Nos.3 and 4 did not make serious contest, and remitted the amount due, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of 3,000/ - each.

(3.) ON hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor on admission, I find no ground or reason to admit the revision to files. When this Court pointed out that the offence stands well proved, the learned counsel made a request to modify the sentence and to grant some reasonable time to the accused to make payment of the amount due from him. It is submitted that the amount due from him is 9,000/ -. If so, the sentence requires modification. The jail sentence can be reduced to the minimum possible under the law, and to impose compensation, the fine sentence will have to be set aside. On a perusal of the case records, I find that the prosecution has well proved the case against the 2nd petitioner. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, and the entries in Ext.P3 register will show that this revision petitioner had received amount from the Bank by way of loan, by pledging spurious gold ornaments. During trial the prosecution well proved the case that all the ornaments pledged by the revision petitioner, are in fact spurious gold. Thus I find that the prosecution has well proved the case on facts against the revision petitioner herein. However, now he is ready to make payment of the amount due from him. The amount was received by the revision petitioner in 2003. Now we are in 2014. Considering the long lapse of years since the date of offence, I feel that some compensation will have to be given to the Bank besides the amount due from the accused. It is submitted that the accused Nos.3 and 4 have made payment of only 3,000/ - as fine besides the amount due. But they were given some concession in sentence because they did not make contest, and made payment of the amount due pending trial. Anyway, I feel that an amount of 3,000/ - besides the amount of 9,000/ - due from the revision petitioner will have to be paid to Bank by way of compensation. I feel that the sentence can accordingly be modified when the Bank could be adequately compensated. It is not known whether the first accused has preferred appeal, or whether he has already served out the sentence. He is the person who appropriated substantial portion of the amount given from the Bank as loan. In the result, this revision petition is disposed as follows, without being admitted to files.