The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition in part, upholding the conviction for cheating and forgery but reducing the imposed imprisonment to fines for Sections 419, 420, 467, and 468 IPC.
Sentence reduced to fines totaling Rs. 5,000 under S. 419, Rs. 5,000 under S. 420, Rs. 1,250 under S. 467, and Rs. 1,250 under S. 468 IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3934 of 2009 ( )
Crl.A 523/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD CC 242/2000 of C.J.M.PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONER:
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE:
R2, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.K.A.ANAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.3934 of 2009
O R D E R
The accused in C.C. No.242 of 2000 on the files of
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad filed this revision petition challenging the finding of conviction
and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C.
thus:- On 14.5.2000, both the accused borrowed an
amount of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 and issued a cheque dated 22.5.2000 by the 2nd accused with a forged signature
Crl.R.P.3934/2009
: 2 :
of the 2nd accused. PW1 presented the said cheque for
encashment. However, the same was dishonoured as the signature differed from the specimen signature.
petitioners.
the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the
Crl.R.P.3934/2009
: 3 :
concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision
petitioners committed the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Crl.R.P.3934/2009
: 4 :
petitioners are not involved in any other offence of similar
nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence alleged against the revision petitioners, I am of the view that leniency can be taken in the matter of sentence. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 419 I.P.C., imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 420 I.P.C., imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1,250/- each (Rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty only) and in default to simple imprisonment for ten
Crl.R.P.3934/2009
: 5 :
days each under Section 467 I.P.C. and imprisonment till
the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1,250/- each (Rupees
one thousand two hundred and fifty only) and in default to
simple imprisonment for ten days each under Section 468
I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order
so. The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the
court will be concurrent. In the event of realisation of the
fine amount, the entire amount shall be given to PW1, as
compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in
part as above.
The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on 2.11.2016 to suffer the sentence.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
dl/20.9.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction regarding forgery and cheating warrants interference by the High Court.
Whether leniency can be granted to the revision petitioners considering the circumstances of the case for sentence modification.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
MOHANACHANDRAN
REMA
KRISHNAKUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
