Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10773
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
P T MATHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 298/2013
SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR, SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN, SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU, SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG)
Concurrent sentences may be imposed for multiple convictions arising from a series of transactions under the IPC, considering the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 read with Section 401 - Conviction for misappropriation and related offences - Petitioner convicted for misappropriating Rs.1,00,000/- from Co-operative Bank by creating false documents - Appeal dismissed with modified sentence. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Concurrent Sentences - When multiple convictions arise from a series of transactions, sentences may run concurrently as per the principle established in relevant case laws. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as Secretary of a Co-operative Bank, misappropriated funds by facilitating unauthorized loans using false documentation. The trial court convicted him, which was upheld on appeal but with a reduced sentence.
Findings of Court:
The conviction for misappropriation was confirmed, with a modified sentence of six months for each offence, running concurrently.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the petitioner’s age and health.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the conviction based on overwhelming evidence of misappropriation and ruled that sentences for related offences could run concurrently.
Result: Revision petition allowed in part.
ORDER
The petitioner was the 1st accused in C.C.No.177 of 2003 on the files of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. He along with the 2nd accused was tried on a charge for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The trial court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under , 418, 465, 467, 471, 474 and 477A of the and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine. The 2nd accused was acquitted. The said judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged by filing Crl.Appeal No.108 of 2012. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Pathanamthitta as per the judgment (sic. order) dated 21.12.2012 dismissed the appeal, however, reducing the terms of substantive sentence to one year. Hence, the petitioner filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. The prosecution was initiated based on the allegation that while the petitioner was working as the Secretary of the Government Servants Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.Q.169, Manthuka, connived with the 2nd accused, who was the President of the Bank, and availed a hire purchase loan of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the petitioner. Further, a loan of Rs.50,000/- was disbursed in the name of CW2, without any application from him. In order to facilitate sanctioning and disbursing of the said loans, they created false documents. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner.
3. Based on the said allegations, a charge was framed and read over. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and produced Exts.P1 to P19. No defence evidence was let in. The trial court, after considering that evidence, convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 , 418, 467, 471, 472 and 477A of the IPC . The challenge posed by the petitioner against the said conviction and consequent sentence were repelled by the appellate court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
5. Insofar as the offences of misappropriation, creation of false documents, defalcation of accounts and cheating, sufficient evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. The documents pertaining to receipt of the loan amounts were in the handwriting of the petitioner. The authorship of such documents, and also the official documents concerning the loan transactions in question is not successfully challenged even. When such overwhelming evidence, both documentary and oral, is available in order to prove receipt of the loan amounts in question by the petitioner but the same was not repaid, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner misappropriated the said amounts. In the circumstances, it can be held that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 418, 465, 465, 467, 471, 474 and 477A of the IPC . I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding in that regard by the trial court and the appellate court.
6. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 , 418, 465, 467, 471, 474 and 477A of the IPC is confirmed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner suffered a stroke and had to undergo treatment for a long period. He is now aged 74 years and ailing of so many diseases. It is further submitted that a major portion of the amount said to have been misappropriated from the Co-operative Bank was repaid. Moreover, the entire immovable property belonging to the petitioner has been kept under attachment. Accordingly, it is submitted that there would not be any loss to the Co- operative Bank.
8. The submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is that the offence committed by the petitioner is very serious and involved several similar instances. Therefore, there is no justification for any i
