P.T. Sajeevan vs P. Sasidharan and State of Kerala

V. Ramkumar, J.—In this revision filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 181 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Vadakara for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 468 read with 34 I.PC.

The case of the prosecution is that A1 who is the son of A2 gave Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the de facto complainant and when the cheque was presented before the drawee bank it was discovered that A1 had drawn the cheque which really belonged to his mother, A2 who was the account holder. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC.

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 3 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned u/s 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.

The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 17.3.06 acquitted A2 but convicted the revision petitioner/1st accused of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 468 IPC. For his conviction u/s 417 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and for his conviction u/s 468 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Addl. District and Sessions Court,Vadakara as Crl. Appeal No. 261 of 2006, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 24.02.07 confirmed the conviction entered but directed that the substantive sentences under Sections 417 and 468 shall run concurrently and further directed that from out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 4,000/- shall be paid to PW1, the de facto complainant. Hence, this Revision.

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 confirmed.

What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner has not paid the entire cheque amount to the de facto complainant and having further regard to the fact that the revision petitioner does not deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for his conviction u/s 420 and 468 IPC, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and an appropriate compensation and fine shall adequately meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, for his conviction u/s 420 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction u/s 468 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) as compensation to the 1st respondent/complainant u/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. On failure to pay the compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The petitioner is given 5 months'' time from today to deposit the fine as well as the compensation before the trial court.

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.

Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008.