A conviction under section 420 IPC requires substantive expert evidence to prove the essential nature of the pledged item; without which, the conviction cannot be upheld.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. …...................................

Crl.R.P.No.246 of 2016 ….................................................................. Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2025 ORDER Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ' for short).

2. The revision petitioner is the 1^st accused in CC No.1125 of 2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. He stood trial before that court, along with another accused, for committing an offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to cheat Adat Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank, Choorakattukara Branch, pledged spurious gold ornaments and obtained a sum of Rs.45,000/-. It is alleged that the 2^nd accused arranged these spurious gold ornaments and gave them to the 1^st accused, who in turn pledged them under the pretext that they were gold ornaments and collected the amount.

4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found the 1^st accused guilty and convicted him under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC . It sentenced the 1st accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under r/w 34 , with a default clause. The case against the 2^nd accused was split up and refiled.

5. The 1^st accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.App.No.628 of 2011 before the 1^st Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. The said court by judgment dated 11.07.2013 dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Sri. Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the 1^st accused. He argued that the prosecution has not examined the material witnesses, including the goldsmith who verified MO1 gold ornaments and certified them to be spurious. He submittd that the other material witnesses examined, including PW1, are not experts and there is no substantive evidence to prove that MO1 series are spurious gold ornaments.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below.

9. An appraisal of the materials on record would go to show that the prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the 1^st accused, has examined PWs 1 to 7 and has marked Exts. P1 to P4 documents and MO1 series. The evidence of PW1 is to the effect that on 2/6/2009 at about 12:00 noon, the 1^st accused came to the bank, pledged spurious gold ornaments weighing 42 grams and obtained Rs.45,000/-. She sanctioned the loan and advanced the money to the 1^st accused, believing him. Later, when the gold ornaments were examined by a goldsmith, she came to know that the ornaments pledged by the 1^st accused are spurious. Similar is the evidence of PW2, and he stated that he had seen the goldsmith examining and informing them that the ornaments pledged were spurious. But it is very pertinent to note that the prosecution has not examined the said goldsmith, who was arrayed as CW4 in the charge sheet and there is no explanation forthcoming for the same. Admittedly, PW1 and PW2 are not experts, and they have not conducted any test or inspection on the MO1 series in order to conclusively say that the ornaments are spurious. On the othe