Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022
Mangaleswaran @ Thavamani ...Petitioner
..vs..
The State Rep.
Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur North Police Station,
Tiruppur District,
Crime No.236 of 2006. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C
to call for the records on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016 by judgment dated
07.12.2021 and confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District in
C.C.No.260 of 2006 dated 13.10.2016 and set aside the judgment dated
07.12.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022
ORDER
This revision has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2021 made in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 while working in the Indian Overseas Bank at Illayangudi Branch had stolen two Demand Drafts with connivance with the second accused and they created forged documents for residential address and identification, including ration card and encashed the same, which caused loss to the Bank. Therefore, P.W.1, who is officer of the said Bank gave a complaint to the respondent/Police against the petitioner and another.
3. The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.236 of 2006 against the petitioner and another for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 and 420 r/w 511 IPC. After investigation, the respondent/Police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.260 of 2006. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the above offences Page No.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the offences and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offences, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.
4. In order to substantiate the same, on the side of the prosecution totally 14 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 26 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and 8 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.8.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and some of the prosecution side witnesses were turned hostile and they have not corroborated the evidence of de facto complainant. The trial Court Page No.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 without considering the materials convicted and sentenced the petitioner only based on the presumption. The Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, which warrants interference of this Court.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Indian Overseas Bank at Illayangudi Branch. While he was in service he had stolen two Demand Drafts and forged documents with connivance of the second accused and encashed amount. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, there is no merit in the revision and the same has to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8.Admittedly, the allegations against the petitioner is that on 09.01.2006, the petitioner had stolen two Demand Drafts bearing Nos.51054500 and 510559498 and subsequently, he created forged Page No.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 documents with connivance of the second accused and encashed the same, which caused loss to the Bank. In order to substantiate the same, the officer who gave the complaint was examined as P.W.1 and other Bank officials were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.9.
9. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case with cogent evidence and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the same was rightly re-appreciated and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
10.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire evidence and also given findings and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. However, this Court has to see whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.
11.On a combined reading of the entire materials and judgments of Page No.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 both the Courts below, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
12.When the matter came up for hearing on 07.09.2022, it seen that while dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court, instead of directing the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur to execute the order of the trial Court, directed the trial Court to issue Non-Bailable Warrant and secure the accused to commit him to prison to undergo remaining period of sentence. But, till the date of hearing, the revision petitioner was not secured. Hence, this Court sought some information from the prosecution as to why the revision petitioner was not secured, for which, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Police, on instructions, submitted that the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur has given a requisition letter dated 25.08.2022 before the learned Magistrate to issue Non-Bailable Warrant and hence, this Court called for explanation from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the learned Principal Page No.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
13. On a perusal of the reports of the both the Courts below, it is seen that the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur never gave any requisition letter either on 25.08.2022 or any other date requesting the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. Further, the report would show that on suo motu, in order to comply the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016, the learned Magistrate issued warrant to the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur on 13.04.2022 itself. However, they have not secured the accused despite the appeal was dismissed.
14.The trial Court issued warrant to secure the accused, but, the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur have not secured the accused, but they have made a false representation that on 25.08.2022, they made a request before the trial Court for issuance of warrant. Therefore, it would clearly show that the respondent/Police Page No.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 misguided the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Even, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor without verifying the same acted simply as mouth piece of the respondent/Police, which causes much inconvenience to dispensation of the justice. It is not for the first time that the Police officials are lying before this Court and in most of the cases they are not properly giving instructions to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. If the Court seeks any information, they give false information and which causes inconvenience to dispensation of the justice.
15.Therefore, the Inspector General of Police, Tiruppur District North Zone, Tiruppur is directed to take action against the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur, who has given wrong information to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and file an action taken report within a month i.e. on or before 18.10.2022.
16. Post the matter on 18.10.2022 '' for reporting compliance'' 15.09.2022 Page No.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
3.The Inspector General of Police, Tiruppur District North Zone, Tiruppur.
4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022 15.09.2022 Page No.10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis