The court upheld the conviction under Section 420 IPC, confirming that obtaining a loan through deceit constitutes sufficient grounds for criminal liability.

ORDER

Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 420 of IPC

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.507 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. He stood trial before that court in the afore case, for committing the offences punishable under Sections 418 , 420 and 422 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that the accused availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Beypore Service Co-operative Bank, Arakkinar Branch on 07.09.2009 by mortgaging a property which was already sold by him. It is also alleged that thereafter, the accused willfully refused to repay the loan amount and cheated the bank, thereby causing a loss of Rs.1,81,290/-.

4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 422 of IPC and acquitted him thereof. But it found the accused guilty of committing of an offence punishable under Section 420 of and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-

under Section 420 of IPC , with a default clause. 5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.A.No.65 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kozhikode. The said court, by judgment dated 09.08.2017, allowed the appeal in part and while upholding the conviction, modified and reduced the sentence to one of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default clause.

6. Heard Jeswin P.Varghese, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the Smt.Maya M.N, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

7. An appraisal of the materials on record show that both the trial court and appellate court have placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of PW1, the then Secretary of Beypore Service Co-operative Bank in order to find the guilt of the accused. PW1 deposed that the accused approached the bank and availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, by producing concocted documents. He would say that the accused thus submitted Ext.P3 title deed, Ext.P6 possession certificate, Ext.P10 basic tax receipt, Ext.P7 encumbrance certificate etc. along with Ext.P9 loan application and availed the loan on 07.09.2004. Later, when the accused committed default in paying the amount and when enquiries were made, it was revealed that a major portion of the property mortgaged was already sold by the accused, prior to creating mortgage with the bank.

8. Ext.P9 is the loan application and it shows that the accused has specifically stated that the extent of property with respect to which the equitable mortgage is created is 20½ cents. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 coupled with Exts.P14 and P15 shows that the accused has sold 6.4 cents and 9¾ cents of land from out of the 20½ cent to PW6 and PW7 respectively, as early as on 29.06.2004 i.e., much before the mortgage. Further, it has come out in the evidence of PW3 that it is as per the instructions of the accused, he had filled up the application for obtaining Ext.P7 encumbrance certificate and thereafter, has obtained it and given it to the accused. Ext.P7 admittedly does not mention about the existence of the encumbrance at the time of mortgage. Thus from the afore evidence, it can be seen that the accused has already sold a major portion of the property before mortgaging it to the bank and thereby, has dishonestly induced the bank to part with public money. That apart, the non-payment of the loan amount after availing the loan facility also clearly