Kerala High Court
M/S. Chungath Jewellery vs Shanmughan R on 24 June, 2025
2025:KER:45676
Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 205 OF 2017
CRIME NO.261/2005 OF Nilambur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2013 IN CC NO.37 OF
2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NILAMBUR ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.2016 IN Crl.A NO.132 OF 2013
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
SIDHIQUE
S/O.RAYIN, PALLIPURAVAN HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM,
POOKOTTUMPADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031,FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
2025:KER:45676
Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA. M. N (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45676
Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017
3
ORDER
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence rendered under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, the 1st accused in C.C.No.37 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, has preferred this criminal revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 22.04.2005, the 1st accused, in furtherance of his common intention with the other accused, dishonestly pledged two spurious gold bangles weighing 48.3 grams (18 carat) in KSFE, Nilambur Branch by representing that the said ornaments are genuine gold ornaments. Thereafter, he dishonestly induced the KSFE to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as gold loan. It is alleged that the bangles were manufactured by the 4th accused and entrusted to the 1st accused for pledging through the 2nd and 3rd accused. Hence the 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 4 prosecution alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. During trial, accused Nos.2 to 4 absconded and the case against them was split up. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 documents and MO1 series were identified and marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. From the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the 1st accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. But it found the 1 st accused guilty of committing an offence, punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced him 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause. The 1st accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.132 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. The said court, by judgment dated 18.04.2016, dismissed the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court had not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and had arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the 1st accused. He argued that MO1 series bangles, which the prosecution alleges to be spurious are not the bangles which were pledged by the accused 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 6 at the relevant time. He submitted that, at the time when the accused pledged the bangles, the same was thoroughly checked by the appraiser of KSFE and an endorsement to its genuinity was made in Ext.P2. He argued that, it is one month thereafter, the KSFE has reported that the bangles pledged were spurious gold ornaments and the same was only to help the office staff who had misappropriated the original gold ornaments.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
7. The testimony of PW1, the Assistant Manager of KSFE is to the effect that the 1st accused had come to pledge gold ornaments on 22.04.2005 while he was holding the charge of the relevant section and he was introduced by PW5. Thereafter, the 1 st accused prepared Ext.P2 gold loan register and 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 7 signed in it. The appraiser attached to the branch verified the articles brought by the 1st accused for pledging and certified that the articles were gold ornaments. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.21,000/- was granted to the 1st accused as per Ext.P3 voucher. His evidence also reveals that later, when the ornaments pledged by the 1st accused were retested by PW4, it was revealed that they were spurious gold ornaments. It is to be seen that PW2, the Senior Assistant of KSFE, Nilambur Branch, has also given evidence in tune with the testimony of PW1. PW3 is the Manager of KSFE, Nilambur Branch who lodged Ext.P4 complaint after coming to know about the incident and PW4 is the appraiser attached to SBT, Nilambur Branch who conducted the test and detected the offence. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the FSL pertaining to the genuineness of the MO1 series produced in this case and it shows 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 8 that the articles examined are spurious gold ornaments.
8. Now, while delving deeper into the evidence of PW1, it can be seen that his evidence is very categoric and shows that at the time when the accused pledged the ornaments, they were verified by an appraiser attached to KSFE, who has 15 years of experience. It is discernible from his evidence that it was after getting satisfied and understanding that the gold weighed 48.3 grams and is having 18 carats, the loan was sanctioned. A perusal of Ext.P2 application would also substantiate the said version of PW1. The certificate signed by the appraiser, which is in the last portion of Ext.P2 would show that he has examined the ornaments in detail and thereafter, has ascertained its value, lustre and weight. The said certificate is also countersigned by the 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 9 Assistant Manager of KSFE. It can be seen that it is after such certification, the gold loan has been disbursed to the 1st accused.
9. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW1 further reveals that it is when PW4 again retested the ornaments, it was understood that the ornaments were spurious. The alleged inspection was not carried in the presence of the accused and the ornaments were taken for inspection from the locker by one Abdul Azeez, the Manager at that time. PW1 also stated that, during the interregnum, the keys of the locker had changed hands and were in the possession of different staffs of KSFE, which he cannot specify. Most importantly, his evidence also shows that when the subsequent retest was conducted, four other bangles were also found to be spurious and he is not sure as to which among them is MO1 series and that all the six bangles 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 10 were handed over to the police together.
10. In the light of the afore evidence of PW1, it can be seen that, after the accused pledged the ornaments, they were allegedly kept in the locker, the keys which had been in the possession of many persons. It is also to be seen that PW1 is not sure as to which among the six bangles that were detected to be spurious are the gold ornaments, which were produced before the court and marked as MO1 series. Further, it is to be seen that even though PW4 admitted that in Ext.P5, he has stated that acid test was conducted in all the 6 bangles, during cross-examination, he stated that the said test was conducted only in one bangle and also that he is not sure as whether MO1 series were thus subjected to acid test. In the light of these facts, it can be stated without any doubt that the prosecution has not proved that the ornaments which 2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 11 were allegedly pledged by the accused were kept in safe custody, without any tampering, till it was taken out and retested. In other words, I may say that the prosecution has failed to establish that MO1 series bangles, which have been found spurious are the ones which were deposited by the 1 st accused on 22.04.2005 with KSFE. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove the identity of MO1 series from among the 6 bangles found to be spurious, as the one allegedly belonging to the 1st accused. Both the trial court and the appellate court have missed these crucial aspects while appreciating the evidence and reaching its conclusions. If so, I find that this criminal revision petition is only to be allowed, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the 1st accused.
Hence, this criminal revision petition is allowed as follows;
2025:KER:45676 Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2017 12 The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner/1st accused under Section 420 of IPC in C.C.No.37 of 2006 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nilambur and as confirmed in Crl.A.No.132 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri are set aside and the revision petitioner/1st accused is set at liberty.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE Scl/