Dismissed

Y/S.Konnathady Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/485/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of the 2nd accused in a breach of trust case. The court held that the revision petitioner failed to prove that the trial court committed a palpable or perverse error in appreciating evidence regarding the accused's appointment and possession of entrusted articles.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed with no interim order or specific life imprisonment granted.

Y/S.Konnathady Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 485 of 2004 (B)

¶6

CC.36/1994 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,ADIMALI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

M/S.KONNATHADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.K.260, KONNATHADY CENTRAL P.O. IDUKKI, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. JANABHAKTHAN, S/O THANKAPPAN,NIRAPPEL HOUSE, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMALCHALA, IDUKKI.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BIJU MEENATTOOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

LSN

¶16

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶17

===========================

¶18

CRL. R.P. NO. 485 of 2004

¶19

===========================

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of July 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This revision petition is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Adimaly in C.C.No. 36/94. The 2^nd respondent herein was tried for offence punishable under Section 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted as per the impugned judgment.

¶23

The prosecution case was as follows :-

¶24

The 1^st accused, being the Secretary and the 2^nd accused

¶25

being the cashier in Konnathady Service Co-operative Bank No. K. 260 appropriated Rs. 3086.50 and 136.600 gms of gold pledged by the members and 2063.98 rupees being the sale proceeds of pesticides and fertilizer from the depot, by acting and aiding each other and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 read with Section 34 IPC. The 1^st accused is no more. The 2^nd accused is the 2^nd respondent in this revision petition.

¶26

CRL. R.P. NO. 485 of 2004 #2#

¶27

On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 8 were

¶28

examined and Exts. P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the defence, there was no oral evidence. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked. After careful evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary the trial court found that if both the accused were to be held liable the prosecution should have established that there was common intention and that apart, it is found that the prosecution had failed to show that the articles were entrusted with the 2^nd accused at any point of time. In the absence of proof for common intention, for the acts of one, criminal liability could not be attached or attributed on the other. The articles were kept in the lockers or chests of the bank and thus materials were supposed to be in the possession of the persons with whom they were entrusted.

¶29

Thus, in short, the court below acquitted the 2^nd accused/ the 2^nd respondent herein on account of absence of material to arrive at a conclusion that he was appointed as cashier in

¶30

CRL. R.P. NO. 485 of 2004 #3#

¶31

the Konnathadi Service Co-operative Bank and also to show that the materials in question were entrusted with him. Such a factual appreciation of evidence can be called in question in revision only on showing that there was palpable, perverse appreciation of evidence. The revision petitioner has failed to make out such a case so as to invite this court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. A judgment of acquittal in such circumstances, invites no interference. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. This revision petition is therefore, liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶32

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶33

kvr/

Y/S.Konnathady Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y/S.Konnathady Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bahuleyan Vs R.Syamnath

Pankajakshan Vs State of Kerala

M.P.George Vs Reji Jacob

T.Raveendranath Vs K.G.Mohanlal

N.K.Sivaraman Vs Aniamma Varghese

Rajiv G.Nair Vs Lanzy