Concurrent findings of fact and proportional sentencing maintain legal integrity in fraud cases under IPC sections 419, 420, and 468.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, and the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in C.C.No.1019/1996 & Crl.A.No.530/2005, respectively, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 419, 420 & 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the first accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case relates to a loan fraud perpetrated by the petitioner herein and four others upon the KSFE. It is alleged that the petitioner herein moved an application for a loan for the purchase of TV and stabilizer, before the KSFE Hire Purchase Unit, Ernakulam, on 18.01.1995, impersonating himself as one M.A. Babu, with second and third accused as guarantors. It is further alleged that even the second and third accused signed the loan documents impersonating themselves as the fourth and fifth accused. The matter came to light pursuant to a dispute between the accused in sharing the unjust enrichment they gained from the aforesaid loan fraud.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and brought on record 15 documents as Exts P1 to P15. Four defence documents were marked as Exts D1 to D4. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that the petitioner and the second accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 & 468 IPC . Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 468 . A default clause of simple imprisonment for two months each was provided for non-payment of fines. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction awarded by the Trial Court. However, the sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 468 . The substantial sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently. An amount of Rs.13,000/- out of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the de facto complainant. It is aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

4. Since there was consecutive non representation on the part of the petitioner, this Court appointed Adv. Mrs. Amrin Fathima, as Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. Before the Trial Court, PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW7 gave evidence in clear and consistent terms on the basis of Exts P1, P5 & P6 documents about the act of the petitioner availing loan from the KSFE Hire Purchase Unit, Ernakulam, by resorting to cheating and impersonation. The KSFE is said to have suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.18,400/- due to the aforesaid criminal act committed by the petitioner. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court subjected the above evidence adduced by the witnesses to meticulous analysis and concluded that the prosecution has successfully established the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 468 IPC charged against the petitioner. It is not possible for this Court, in exercise of its revisional powers to unsettle the above concurrent findings on facts of the courts below.

7. As regards the sentence awarded, it is seen that the Appellate Court has rightly reduced the tenure of rigorous imprisonment to six months each and enhanced the fine to Rs.5,000/- each for the commission of each of the aforesaid offences. T