A.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the second accused in C.C.No.169 of 2002 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta. He and the first accused faced prosecution in the court below under Sections 408 and 409 IPC on the allegation that in their capacity respectively as the Secretary and the Chairman of the Pathanamthitta Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society, they sold 70 cents of property belonging to the Society to a third person for a very lesser amount of consideration when the property would have actually fetched Rs. 25,000/- per cent in the open market. Thus, the prosecution would allege that by such a sale unauthorisedly made without the consent of the higher authorities, they caused wrongful loss to the Society. The police registered the crime on the basis of the copy of a letter sent by the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies to the District Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta. The said copy was forwarded from the office of the District Superintendent of Police to the Station House Officer. After investigation, the police submitted final report in Court against the two accused.

(2.) They appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. Both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 They did not adduce any oral evidence in defence, but Ext.D1 was marked. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Sections 408 and 409 IPC.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2003, the accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta with Crl.Appeal No.415 of 2003. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Pathanamthitta found the first accused not guilty, and accordingly he was acquitted in appeal. But the conviction against the second accused was confirmed, and the sentence was also confirmed by the appellate court. Now the second accused has come up in revision before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.