IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 951 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.160/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, MAJERI. CC.337/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------------- P.BABU, S/O.NARAYANAN PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU PO KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT:- ------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 951 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the 1st accused in C.C. No. 337 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri for offences punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e) of the Passports Act, 1967, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 12 (1)(d) of the Passports Act. He was acquitted of the other offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 05.08.2005, A1 impersonating himself as A2 travelled from Dubai to Calicut airport by Flight No. IX/314 by using the forged passport No. A 6757604 of A2 in which the photograph of A2 was replaced with that of A1. Since the aforesaid acts were Crl.R.P. No. 951/2010 -:2:- done by the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, the accused persons have committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 12 and got marked 19 documents as Exts. P1 to P19. 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 26.04.2008 acquitted the 2nd accused but found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C and Section 12(1)(d) Crl.R.P. No. 951/2010 -:3:- of the Passports Act, 1967. The revision petitioner was acquitted of the other offences. For the conviction under Section 419 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the conviction under Section 471 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For his conviction under Section 12(1)(d) of the Passports Act, 1967, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 160 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Manjeri as per judgment dated 04.02.2010 confirmed the conviction but altered the sentences under Sections 419 and 471 IPC to Rs.2000/- each as fine only with a default sentence. With regard to the conviction under Section 12(1)(d) of Passports Act, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one Crl.R.P. No. 951/2010 -:4:- month. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this revision. 6. Even though 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. 7. 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 facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 12(1) (d) of the Passports Act, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and on default to pay Crl.R.P. No. 951/2010 -:5:- the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of fine imposed on his under Sections 419 and 471 IPC is not interfered with. The petitioner is given 45 days from today to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. He shall appear before the trial court on 04.05.2010 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv