M V KUNHIRAMAN Vs. S I OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M V KUNHIRAMAN
S I OF POLICE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) These revision petitions are directed against the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial court and the Appellate court finding the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. There was a further direction that the amount seized by the police the amount due under Ext.P11 cheque, which was fraudulently encashed by the accused, be returned to the drawer of the cheque.
(2.) The gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, a postal employee, intercepted a postal cover addressed to PW2 enclosing Ext.P10 cheque. Ext.P10 cheque was drawn in the name of PW2 for $ 20,000. the same was issued by one Thomas J. Donnelly. The accused allegedly forged Ext. P8 letter. He made it to appear that Ext. P8 letter was being written by PW2 to the said Thomas J. Donnelly. Under Ext.P8, PW2 was shown to return Ext. P10 cheque to the said Donnelly with a request to him to issue a cheque in the name of the accused. Accordingly the said Thomas J. Donnelly received back Ext. P10 cheque and issued Ext.P11 cheque, which was forwarded to PW2 along with Ext.P9 letter under registered post. Ext.P9 letter sent under registered post was also intercepted by the accused, who got in encashed in an account opened by him in the State Bank of Travancore. Thus, in short, the allegation is that the accused by his fraudulent conduct induced Thomas J. Donnelly to issue Ext. P11 cheque in the name of the accused. He allegedly intercepted the same in post illegally and misappropriated the same. To facilitate this he had forged Ext. P8 letter and Ext. P17 acknowledgment and had also caused Ext. P10 (a) endorsement to be made on Ext. P10 cheque.
(3.) The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and proved Exts. P1 to 34. DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. D1 to 8 were marked.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.