JOHN PANACHIKKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal 54 of 1962 confirming the conviction of the petitioners of the offence under S.420 I. P. C. Crl. R. P. 59 of 1963 is by the first accused and Crl. R. P. 126 of 1963 is by the second accused. They have both been convicted of the offence under S.420 I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The case against the accused was that with the intention of cheating the public, they advertised in the papers and circulated bit notices regarding the conduct of a lottery and in pursuance of this, tickets worth about Rs. 867 and odd were sold and they dishonestly misappropriated the amount without drawing the lots and published a bogus prize list.

(3.) Pw. 1 has deposed that he saw an advertisement in the Deepika paper relating to the Indian State Club and he got Ext. P l notice sent to him by the club. Ext. P 1 makes mention of the collection by lottery tickets and about the proposal to draw lots on 10th August, 1957. Pws. 2 and 6 have deposed that on perusal of the advertisement in the Navajeevan paper they wrote to the Indian State Club and purchased tickets. Pw. 3 the manager of the Navajeevan paper has given evidence about the insertion of the advertisement in pursuance of letters Exts. P 15 and P 16. Pw.12 the manager of the Sahodaran Press has given evidence that copies of Ext. P 45 notice were printed in his press. Ext. P 48 is the bill for printing and Pw. 12 has sworn that it was the first accused who paid the amount due under the bill. It is difficult to accept the suggestion that Pw. 12 is giving false evidence. Pws. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 have sworn to seeing notices and purchasing the tickets Exts. P 3, P 4, P 9, P 21, P 29 and P 38. The counterfoils of these tickets have all been recovered by Pw. 25. The money order acknowledgments for remittance have also been proved. All the witnesses have stated that but for the attractive offers made in the notice and advertisement and the chance of winning prizes they would not have taken tickets and parted with their money.