IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1169 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.8/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.162/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, RAJESH BHAVANAM, IRUMBANANGADU, KOLANNOOR MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE. 2. OMANAKUTTANL PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, RAJENDRA BHAVANAM, IRUMBANANGADU, KOLANNOOR MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1169 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The revision petitioners, who were the accused in C.C. No.162 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kollam for offences punishable under Sections 205 and 419 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioners produced salary certificates of PWs 1 and 2 who were employees of the Indian Railways without the consent or knowledge of PWs 1 and 2 and stood as sureties for the 1st accused in C.C. No. 134 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam impersonating PWs 1 and 2 without their knowledge or consent. 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 8 CRL.R.P. NO. 1169/2008 :2: witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7 and 4 material objects as Mos.1 to 4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 30.12.2002 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for two years each under Sections 205 and 419 IPC with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal preferred by them as Crl. Appeal No. 8 of 2003 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 25.01.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence, this Revision. 6. The facts and circumstances of the case will show that the revision petitioners styling themselves as PWs 1 and 2 had CRL.R.P. NO. 1169/2008 :3: obtained their salary certificates from the Railway Department where PWs 1 and 2 were employed and making use of the salary certificates they had impersonated PWs 1 and 2 and had figured as the sureties for the 1st accused in C.C. No. 134 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. 7. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Having regard to the facts proved by the prosecution, the petitioners were committing the aforesaid offences vitally affecting the administration of justice. They were not only cheating PWs 1 and 2 but were also committing a fraud on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam by masquerading CRL.R.P. NO. 1169/2008 :4: themselves as genuine sureties for the accused in C.C. No. 134 of 1996. Such persons do not deserve any leniency. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv