Paul vs M.Suresh on 28 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Paul vs M.Suresh on 28 August, 2008




Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 114 of 1998(C)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :28/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                     Cr.R.P.No.114 of 1998
                        Dated: 28.08.2008

                           O R D E R

In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401

Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No.28 of 1995

on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Thrissur for offences punishable

under Sections 403, 408, 409, 420 and 477A IPC, challenges the

conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the

aforementioned offences concurrently by the courts below.

2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as


The accused was functioning as the acting Secretary of the

Koorkkanchery Service Co-operative Bank during the period

from 7.8.1967 to 29.1.1989. For the period from 30.1.69 to

19.10.90 he was functioning as the Secretary of the said Bank.

Lucy, the wife of the accused had availed a loan on 9.9.98 for a

sum of Rs.10,000/- and she executed an equitable mortgage to

secure the loan. While the loan was still outstanding, the

accused on 18.7.1990 returned all the documents to his wife

Lucy. The accused also had taken a loan of Rs.15,000/- on

Crl.R.P.No.114 of 1998

11.6.90 without making necessary entries in the books of

accounts of the Bank. That transaction has not been settled so

far. One Thanka had availed of a gold loan to the extent of

Rs.2400/- on 7.7.89. Eventhough the said Thanka repaid the

money, the accused did not make necessary entries in the books

of the bank and misappropriated the same. He did the same act

in respect of another loan availed of by Thanka. One Antony had

deposited a cheque of Rs.11,747.60 for collection. The said

amount was paid immediately to Antony. When the proceeds

were received after collection of the cheque, it is seen that the

accused credited the amount to his personal account and

withdrew the amount from his account. The accused has thus

committed falsification of the accounts of the bank and criminal

breach of trust and misappropriation of a sum of Rs.53,361.70.

The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under

Sections 403,408,409,420 and 477A.

3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge

framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned

offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in

support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7

Crl.R.P.No.114 of 1998

witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 26 documents as Exts.

P1 to P26.

4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the

accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with

regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him

in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those

circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not

adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.

5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment

dated 6.1.96 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences

charged against him and sentenced him to rigorous

imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on

default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month under Section 403 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two

years each and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and on default to pay the fine

to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section

408,409 & 477(A) IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision

petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thrissur as Crl.Appeal

No.22 of 1996, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated

7.2.98 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered

Crl.R.P.No.114 of 1998

and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence,

this Revision.

6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction

entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the

conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently

after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence

in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to

interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly


7. What now survives for consideration is the question

regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on

the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the 1st

respondent also confirms that the revision petitioner has paid

the entire amounts due to the 1st respondent- bank and the bank

has no subsisting claim or grievance over the issue. If so, I do

not think that the petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of

incarceration. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to put

the revision petitioner on fine. The sentence imposed by the

courts below is set aside and for his conviction under Section

Crl.R.P.No.114 of 1998

403 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple

imprisonment for 10 days. For his conviction under Sections

408,409 and 471 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

each and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment

for 15 days each. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount

before the trial court within one month from today.

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the

conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.

Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008.

V.Ramkumar, Judge.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information