ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision case is directed against concurrent Judgments of conviction passed in Cr.A.No. 232 of 2005, dated 20.01.2017 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District confirming the Judgment made in C.C.No.118 of 2004, dated 14.09.2005 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2. The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No. 118 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant Ramakrishnan, the respondent police registered the First Information Report in Crime No.98 of 2004 under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003. After completing the investigation, the respondent police has laid a final report against two accused including the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003 and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.118 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.

3. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and exhibited 5 documents as Exs. P1 to P5. The accused have adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the Judgment on 14.09.2005 convicting both the accused for the offence under Section 3 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction, both the accused have preferred the appeals in Cr.A.Nos.232 and 234 of 2005 and the learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, upon considering the materials and on hearing both the sides, has passed the impugned Judgment on 20.01.2017 confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 3 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003, but modified the sentence of imprisonment and sentenced both the accused to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment and confirmed the imposition of fine. Not satisfied with the said Judgment of conviction, the second accused has come forward with the present revision.

5. Admittedly, PW.3 Raju Velar is the husband of PW.2, Janaki and PW.1, the defacto complainant Ramakrishnan is the Son of PW.2 and PW.3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.3 in order to meet out the medical expenses of his wife PW.2, borrowed a sum of Rs.19,500/- from the first accused for interest at Rs.5/- per Rs.100/- per month and also borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the second accused for the interest at Rs.10/- per Rs.100/- per moth, that he has been paying monthly interest at Rs.975/- and Rs.300/- to both the accused respectively for the two years since borrowal, that both the accused had taken signatures of PW.3 in the un filled promissory note and in white papers, that on 12.03.2004 at 4.00 p.m, the accused came to PW.1 house and demanded and threatened to repay the principal amount and interest immediately, that since PW.2 who was in the house at that time has not paid the amount, both the accused had taken the household articles and PW.2 who was lying in the bed due to her ill health to the outside of the house and locked the house and taken away the key.

6. PW.3 in his evidence would say that he had taken a loan of Rs.19,500/- from the first accused and Rs.3,000/- from the second accused and that the interest agreed was at the rate of Five Paisa. As rightly contended by the revision petitioner side, PW.3 has not mentioned about the date or period of borrowal. PW.1 in his chief examination would say that his father had obtained a loan of Rs.19,500/- from the first accused for inter