Sufficient witness and circumstantial evidence can support convictions for fraud without the necessity for formal laboratory testing.

O R D E R

The 1st accused in C.C.No.267 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adimaly, who stands convicted and sentenced concurrently by the trial court and the appellate court for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). The petitioner as well as the 2nd accused, who stood trial in separate proceedings were convicted. Both of them filed appeals, which were dismissed. The petitioner alone is in revision before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The charge against the petitioner and the co-accused was that they in furtherance of their common intention fraudulently pledged a spurious gold ring at Adimaly Branch of M/s Manappuram Finance and received Rs.5,400/-. The address of the petitioner given was false and thereby they committed the offence of impersonation.

4. Before the Magistrate, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. MOs.I and II were identified also. While examining under Section 313 of the Code, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances against him, but no specific explanation was offered. The trial court after considering the evidence in detail found the petitioner as well as the 2nd accused guilty. The sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of three months imprisonment under Section 419 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of three months imprisonment under Section 420 of the was awarded. The appellate court re-appreciated the evidence in detail and confirmed the conviction. The sentence was, however, interfered with. The substantive sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the .

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the judgments mainly on two grounds. The first is that MOs.1 and 2, which are the spurious gold ring and a piece of it separated for testing, were not examined in any approved laboratory, and therefore, evidence is lacking to hold that the said objects are really spurious. The second is that the identity of the petitioner was not established.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the evidence tendered by the prosecution sufficiently had proved the aforesaid aspects and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below.

7. The power of revision under Section 401 of the Code is not wide and exhaustive. The High Court in the exercise of the powers of revision cannot re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of the evidence is confined to find out the legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. When the findings rendered by the courts below are well supported by evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse in any way, this Court is not expected to interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. [See:State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452]; Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [ (2015) 3 SCC 123 ]; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165 ].

8. PW1 was the Manager and PWs.2, 3 and 8 were members of staff at Adimaly Branch of M/s Manappuram Finance. From their evidence, it is seen that the persons who pledged the gold ring were in that office for quite a long period. The formalities that took place were narrated by these witnesses. PW3 tested the ornament also. It was on the third day photographs of the accused appeared in a newspaper stating that they pledged spurious gold ornaments at another place. The photographs of the persons ava