DAMODARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALENDAR Case No. 1 of 1125 (M. E.) was disposed, of by a special Tribunal constituted for that purpose by the Government of India consisting of a senior District and Sessions Judge deputed from the Madras State. The crime excited considerable local interest in Cochin. The subject-matter of the offence was over 5 (five) lakhs of rupees taken from the coffers of the erstwhile Cochin State during the time of His Highness' Kerala Verma who was then the ruling Prince of the State and who died before the trial commenced. Three persons were charged with offences of forgery and cheating under the Cochin Penal Code which was then in force in the State. The 2nd accused was a son of the then Maharaja and it was believed that he wielded considerable influence over his father. The Police investigation was conducted by an officer deputed by the Union Government at Delhi. The trial before the Special Tribunal continued for over eight months at Ernakulam (from January to September 1050) and on the 12th of September 1950 the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced convicting the 1st accused Damodaran of the offence of cheating under Section 400 of the Cochin Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. The 2nd accused who was charged with abetment of the offence was acquitted. The 3rd accused died pending trial and the case against him, therefore, terminated. The present appeal is brought on behalf of the first accused.

(2.) THE evidence is considerable in quantity. The appeal was argued before us by Mr. Malloor Govinda Pillay who appeared for the appellant, Mr. Saranjame, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government of India appeared on behalf of the State. The Advocate-General of this State who had filed a criminal revision case, contended that the punishment was not adequate and he, therefore, prayed for a more severe sentence. According to him, a sentence of fine should have been coupled with the sentence of imprisonment. We should like to record that learned Counsel who appeared before us discharged their respective duties with commendable brevity without at the same time omitting to deal with any relevant aspect of the case, with the result that it was possible for us to conclude the hearing in a little over two days.

(3.) IT is necessary at the outset to refer to the main features of the case which came in for comment in the course of the arguments. We propose to confine our attention to these and these alone and not to refer to the wealth of detail which is contained in the judgment of the Tribunal.