The conviction for fraud requires clear evidence of the identity and status of the alleged spurious items, which was not established.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence rendered under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC , the 1^st accused in C.C.No.37 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, has preferred this criminal revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 22.04.2005, the 1^st accused, in furtherance of his common intention with the other accused, dishonestly pledged two spurious gold bangles weighing 48.3 grams (18 carat) in KSFE, Nilambur Branch by representing that the said ornaments are genuine gold ornaments. Thereafter, he dishonestly induced the KSFE to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as gold loan. It is alleged that the bangles were manufactured by the 4^th accused and entrusted to the 1^st accused for pledging through the 2^nd and 3^rd accused. Hence the prosecution alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC .

3. During trial, accused Nos.2 to 4 absconded and the case against them was split up. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 documents and MO1 series were identified and marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. From the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the 1^st accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC . But it found the 1^st accused guilty of committing an offence, punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause. The 1^st accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.132 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. The said court, by judgment dated 18.04.2016, dismissed the appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court had not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and had arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the 1^st accused. He argued that MO1 series bangles, which the prosecution alleges to be spurious are not the bangles which were pledged by the accused at the relevant time. He submitted that, at the time when the accused pledged the bangles, the same was thoroughly checked by the appraiser of KSFE and an endorsement to its genuinity was made in Ext.P2. He argued that, it is one month thereafter, the KSFE has reported that the bangles pledged were spurious gold ornaments and the same was only to help the office staff who had misappropriated the original gold ornaments.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

7. The testimony of PW1, the Assistant Manager of KSFE is to the effect that the 1^st accused had come to pledge gold ornaments on 22.04.2005 while he was holding the charge of the relevant section and he was introduced by PW5. Thereafter, the 1^st accused prepared Ext.P2 gold loan register and signed in it. The appraiser attached to the branch verified the articles brought by the 1^st accused for pledging and certified that the articles were gold ornaments. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.21,000/- was granted to the 1^st accused as per Ext.P3 voucher. His evidence also reveals that later, when the ornaments pledged by the 1^st accused were retested by PW4, it was revealed that they were spurious gold ornaments. It is to be seen that PW2, the Se