IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 891 of 2000(Y) ------------------------------ CRA.174/1995 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.62/1991 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- KRISHNANACHARI, S/O.NARAYANAN, THAZHATHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, VARIKKAMKUNNU, VELLOOR, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED SRI.N.F.JAMES RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.891 of 2000 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. On a charge of attempt to commit the offence of cheating, revision petitioner faced trial in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor, was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Though revision petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence, this revision. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner that there is no evidence to show that MO1, gold bangle is rolled gold and that at any rate, there is no possibility of revision petitioner cheating the bank authorities since he was not eligible to get loan from the bank and hence there was no question of his request for loan being sanctioned. Further contention is that there is no proper questioning of the revision petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). 4. Case is that on 15.2.1991 revision petitioner went to the Service Co-operative Bank, Kumaranelloor to avail a loan on the security of MO1 claiming it to be gold. PW2 has given evidence that on the relevant day PW1, Crl.R.P.No.891/2000 2 the Secretary of the bank was not in station. She, as the Assistant Secretary of the bank entertained the revision petitioner who came for loan on the security of MO1. She felt doubt and hence the opinion of PW4, a professional goldsmith was obtained. PW4 reported that MO1 is not pure gold. PW3 is an attender of the bank. PW1 gave first information to the police. PW5, Sub Inspector seized MO1 as per Ext.P2, mahazar on 15.2.1991. Courts below accepted the evidence of pWs 1 to 5 and found that revision petitioner made an attempt to avail loan on the security of MO1. Learned counsel contends that MO1 is not rolled gold and reliance is placed on the evidence of PW4, professional goldsmith. PW4 stated that MO1 though would appear to be gold, is made with some other material and is plated with gold. He further stated that there will be different carats of gold. But, his evidence is that MO1 is made with other materials and plated with gold. Evidence of PWs 1 to 3 would show that revision petitioner had availed loan on the security of MO1 as if that is gold. Evidence of PW4 would show that MO1 is not gold but only plated with gold. 5. It is then contended that unless revision petitioner was a member of the bank and if he were not acquainted to PWs 1 and 2 and, he had to be introduced by others and otherwise no loan would have been sanctioned. PW2 had no previous acquaintance with the revision petitioner. It is therefore, contended that there was no possibility of revision petitioner cheating PW2. That Crl.R.P.No.891/2000 3 contention also cannot be sustained. The question is not whether revision petitioner would have been successful in his attempt but, whether he attempted to cheat the bank. That attempt is proved by evidence of PWs 1 to 4. 6. It is then argued by the learned counsel that questioning under Section 313 of the Code was not proper. Entire answer given by a witness was put in the form of a single Question. I have gone through the statement under Section 313 of the Code. Contention of learned counsel is correct but, it is also to be remembered that for every such question the revision petitioner had given answers and it is not shown that revision petitioner has been prejudiced or mislead by the manner in questioning under Section 313 of the Code. When he was asked whether he had anythin to say further in the matter, he did not avail of that opportunity. 7. I have gone though the evidence and find no reason to interfere with the findings entered by the courts below. Conviction of the revision petitioner therefore, requires no interference. 8. Counsel submitted that revision petitioner is now aged about 55 years, sick and not involved in any other offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case and since the revision petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case, I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till the rising of court and fine of Rs.2,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Crl.R.P.No.891/2000 4 Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part in the following lines:- Sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of court and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) , in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 20.12.2008 to receive the sentence. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.4727 of 2000 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.891/2000 5 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.891 of 2000 ORDER 14th November, 2008