VISWANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment in Crl.A. No. 885 of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -IV, Thiruvananthapuram confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Neyyattinkara in C.C. No. 527 of 2001. The revision petitioner -accused was tried for an offence punishable under Sec. 420, IPC. On being found guilty, the trial court convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the petitioner preferred Crl.A. No. 885/2007. The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant -accused has failed to make out a case warranting interference with the order of conviction passed by the trial court and consequently, confirmed the conviction. However, the appellate court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant -accused was excessive and therefore, interfered with and modified the sentence to one to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentence to pay fine and default clause were maintained. This revision petition has been filed in the said circumstances.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that CW1 was working as Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara. The revision petitioner/accused was the defendant in O.S. No. 592 of 1997 on the files of the Court of Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara. His property comprised in Sy. No. 275/1 of Neyyattinkara village measuring 13 cents including a building thereon, was attached by the Munsiff Court and the said attachment was later, lifted on production of a fixed deposit for Rs. 41600/ - by the accused effected in SBT, Neyyattinkara Branch on 7.8.1997. Thereafter, suppressing the said facts, the revision petitioner filed an application before the Bank Manager stating that he lost the said fixed deposit receipt and obtained a duplicate certificate and then availed a loan of Rs. 20,000/ - from the fixed deposit on 6.1.1998. Subsequently, he defaulted in repayment towards the said loan and thereafter, he withdrew the entire balance amount due to him before the maturity period. It is in the said circumstances that he was tried for the said offence in C.C. No. 527 of 2001.

(3.) On appearance of the accused, after preliminary hearing, charge under Sec. 420, IPC was framed against him. It was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. To prove the charge against the accused, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Ext. P1 to P11 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant -accused was questioned under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. On being asked to enter on defence the accused got marked Ext. D1 as defence evidence but, did not adduce any oral evidence. After appreciating the evidence and considering the arguments advanced, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 420, IPC.