Fraudulent misrepresentation in property transactions leads to conviction under Section 420 IPC.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, and the Additional Sessions Court -III, Ernakulam in C.C.No.808/1995 and Crl.Appeal No.113/2001, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , are under challenge in this revision filed at the instance of the accused in the said case.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant in respect of her property, suppressing the pendency of a suit for specific performance in respect of the same property, in connection with an earlier agreement with a third party. It is further alleged that within 20 days from the date of execution of the sale deed, the property was attached in the aforesaid suit instituted by the third party against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have cheated the complainant and gained unjust enrichment to the tune of Rs.25,000/- as sale consideration for the conveyance of the property, which was subject to liability.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the private complaint filed by the aggrieved person.

4. After evaluation of the evidence tendered by the complainant and one witness as PW1 and PW2, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5, and Exts.D1 to D4 on the part of the defence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC and convicted her. She was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.30,000/-

with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months.

4. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ernakulam, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5, to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner executed Ext.P1 sale deed with a fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat PW1. A reading of Ext.P1 would reveal that the vendee was made to believe by the petitioner (vendor) that the property so conveyed to the vendee (PW1), was not subjected to any sort of encumbrance or other defects or claims. The above said assurance made by the petitioner is apparently untrue, since she was fully aware of the existence of Ext.D2 agreement dated 11.08.1991 in favour of a person by name ‘Mukundan’, agreeing to sell the said property to him. It is on the basis of the above agreement that the said person had instituted a suit against the petitioner and obtained attachment after 20 days from the date of execution of Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of PW1. Therefore, fraudulent and dishonest inducement and cheating is manifest from the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner.

8. In that view of the matter, the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding the petitioner guilty for the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC , cannot be interfered in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. However, taking into account of the age of the accused, and also the long lapse of more than three decades, from the date of transaction between the parties, I am of the view that the prison-term of the punishment awarded by the courts below is liable to be restricted to impris