The court confirmed the conviction for cheating under Section 420 IPC, finding sufficient evidence of the accused's fraudulent actions in pledging spurious gold.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Criminal Revision Petition – Conviction for cheating by pledging spurious gold bangles for a loan of ₹40,000/- – The trial court and appellate court confirmed the conviction based on consistent testimonies of bank employees and expert evidence establishing the ornaments as fake – Delay in FIR registration was explained and deemed acceptable – Sentence modified to ten months imprisonment. (Paras 15, 18, 19)

Facts of the case: The accused pledged two spurious gold bangles at a bank to obtain a loan, leading to his conviction for cheating. (Paras 2, 8)

Findings of Court: The evidence established that the accused duped the bank by pledging fake gold. (Paras 14, 15)

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence should be interfered with. (Para 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. (Paras 15, 19)

Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed in part; conviction confirmed, sentence modified.

O R D E R

Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.29/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. He was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC . The appeal preferred by him as Crl.A No.314/2011 before the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam was dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. In this revision, the accused assails the said concurrent finding of conviction and sentence against him.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 21.11.2007, the accused with dishonest intention, pledged two spurious gold bangles at 'Mini Muthoot Bank', Pallimukku, Kollam and availed a loan of ₹40,000/- and thus cheated the said financial institution.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Before the trial court, prosecution examined Pws1 to 7, marked Exts.P1 to P7. MO1 series and MO2 series are the material objects.

5. On an appreciation of evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A.No.314/2011 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court by confirming the conviction and sentence. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision contending that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge failed to take note of the fact that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR; that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and failed to take note of the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. Further, it was contended that the seizure of the material objects allegedly effected was not properly proved. It was also contended that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the crime alleged and, therefore, the conviction and sentence against the accused are to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court and contended that the evidence led by the prosecution conclusively established the offence against the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of sentence.

7. The point for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court.

8. The prosecution case is that on 21.11.2007, the accused pledged two spurious gold bangles weighing 56 gms at 'Mini Muthoot Bank', Pallimukku Branch, Kollam District and obtained a loan of ₹40,000/- from the said financial institution.

9. To substantiate the prosecution case that on 21.11.2007 accused pledged two bangles in the Mini Muthoot Bank, Pallimukku Branch, Kollam and availed a loan of ₹40,000/-, prosecution has examined Pws1 to 3 who are employees of the said financial institution. PW1 was the manager of 'Mini Muthoot Bank' at Pallimukku Branch. PW1 testified that on 21.11.2007 accused came to the said institution and pledged two bangles weighing 56 gms by furnishing his name and address as 'Salim, Assissi Cottage, Thattamala' and obtained a loan of ₹40,000/-. Ext.P2 is the form filled up by the accused at the time of pledging the ornaments. Ext.P3 is the agreement executed by the accused. His further version is that after the accused left the bank, the employees of the Bank became suspicious about the ornaments pledged by him and accordingly when they verified the bangles pledged by the accused, it was found that it was fake gold. Accordingly, PW1 informed the matter to the head office. Subsequently, they came to know that one such similar instance had taken place at their another Branch namely ‘Choonadu’ Branch and the Vallikunnam Pol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document