IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 19TH POUSHA, 1939 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 656 of 1997 IN CRA 338/1993 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM DATED 22-07-1997 IN CC 372/1990 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM DATED 12-08-1993 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED K.K.GOPI, PARTNER, FALCON TRAVELS, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR SRI.P.V.LONAPPAN SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.B.I. KOCHI (R.C. NO.4/S/89)

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ds P.UBAID, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 09th day of January, 2018

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No. 372 of 1990 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. It is a prosecution brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Cochin Unit, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that in March-April, 1998, the accused received an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from one Gangadharan on an offer to arrange visa for job abroad on a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month, he accordingly went abroad, and when the complainant reached there, he was granted job only on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. Finding it not possible to pull on with a meager salary, and also finding it not possible to suffer the harassment there, the complainant came back to India, and approached the accused for the money he paid. The accused declined the request, and then the complainant approached the Office of the Protector of Emigrants for the money deposited by him for emigration clearance. At that time, the complainant realized that nothing had been in fact deposited in his name, and that he was really being cheated by the accused on a false offer that he would get a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- abroad. On the basis of the information received regarding this cheating, and also the forgery made by the accused, the CBI registered a crime, and proceeded for investigation. The forgery alleged is that, for obtaining emigration clearance, the accused created some false documents in the name of the Union Bank of India and also the Protector of Emigrants. After investigation, the CBI submitted final report in court.

2. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, and proved Exts. P1 to P37 documents in the trial court.

3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not adduce any oral evidence in defence. But Exts. D1 to D3 documents were marked on his side.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 468 IPC. Accordingly, he was acquitted of the said offence. However, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 420 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section

471 IPC, by judgment dated 12.08.1993.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam, with Crl. A.No. 338 of 1993. In appeal, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, by judgment dated 22.07.1997. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

6. On a perusal of the entire materials, and on hearing both sides, I find no ground or reason for interference in revision in the finding and the conviction concurrently made by the courts belo