LAWS(KER)-2018-3-734

K.C. CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 05, 2018
K.C. Chacko Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC in C.C. No.261/1994 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tiruvalla. The police registered the crime on a complaint forwarded from the Court of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 for investigation. The complainant is the Proprietor of the Three Star Automobile Workshop at Tiruvalla. The vehicle No.KLB-6677 belonging to the revision petitioner had been repaired at the said workshop. The prosecution would allege that the revision petitioner created some false bills and vouchers in the letter pad of the Workshop, and by using the same, the revision petitioner received some amount of compensation from the United India Insurance Company. After investigation, the police submitted final report in court. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him.

(2.) The prosecution examined eight witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P9 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.1998, the accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta with Crl.A. No.22/1999. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was maintained, and under Section 420 IPC, the appellate court directed the accused to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant. Now, the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.