T.K. RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in C.C. No. 376/2004, who was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Mananthavadi for offences punishable under Sections 417, 419 and 420 IPC and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Kalpetta in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2007 to the extent of the conviction under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE allegation of the complainant bank was that, PW7, who was an A class member of the above society came to the bank on 3/10/2003 along with the accused herein, introduced him as one K.R. Shiju S/o Radhakrishanan and pledged a necklace having 37.300 grams for loan of Rs. 13,000/ - repayable within a period of three months. Since the amount was not repaid, a registered letter was issued by the bank, which was returned on the ground that there was no such addressee. Enquiry with PW7 revealed that, in fact, he know only the person and did not know that he had availed loan by representing a fake name. The investigation revealed that the person who pledged was one Rajan, S/o. Kelappan. Ext.P1 complaint was lodged by the General Manager of the Bank on 13/5/2004, whereupon Ext.P6 FIS was recorded and crime was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate Court for offences punishable under Sections 417,419 and 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 9, Exts.P1 to P10 and Nos. 1 to 3, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for various periods. This was carried in appeal by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, on an evaluation and re -appraisal of all the inputs, concurred with the factual findings of the court below. However, regarding the conviction, the lower appellate court held that since the accused stood convicted under Section 419 IPC, no separate punishment under Section 417 IPC was liable to be awarded and hence, the conviction under Section 417 IPC was set aside.

(3.) THE prosecution essentially relied on the oral testimony of PWs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 was the General Manager who laid the letter before the police on the strength of a letter submitted to him by PW2, the Branch Manager. It is not in dispute that PW7 was an A class member of the bank and was known to PW1 and PW2. It has also come in evidence that he had been closely interacting with the Cooperative Bank in its various activities and used to visit the bank frequently. It is also on record that PW7 on 3/10/2003 brought a person to the bank for the purpose of pledging a necklace. He was not a member of the bank. Since as per the rules, gold loans were advanced only to the members of the bank, he was enrolled as a member on the same day, after making necessary entries in the various registers and records, as introduced by PW7, Gangadharan. A loan of Rs. 13,000/ - for a period of three months was sanctioned, received by that person and it was thereafter not repaid. It is also not in dispute that the registered letter sent in the address of that person was returned, unserved on the ground that the addressee was not known. Ext.P5 is the returned registered letter.