Madras High Court
R.Raja vs Stated Represented By on 24 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
R.Raja ...Petitioner
Vs.
Stated represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Pallappatty Police Station,
Salem. ...Respondent
The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in Criminal Appeal No.69 of
2018 dated 23.04.2019 confirming the order of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Salem, in C.C.No.138 of 2008 dated 27.03.2018 and allow
the above criminal revision case.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraju, Senior Advocate for
M/s.C.S.Associates
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
------------
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
ORDER
This criminal revision is preferred against the order passed by the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in Criminal Appeal
No.69 of 2018 dated 23.04.2019 confirming the order of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Salem, in C.C.No.138 of 2008 dated 27.03.2018
2 The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2020 of
2007 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420 and 506(ii) of
IPC. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Salem, which was taken on file in C.C.No.138 of 2008. On
completion of trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the
learned Magistrate not found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence
under Section 506(ii), however, found guilty for the offence under Section
420 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of three months. Challenging the same, the
petitioner has filed an appeal before the learned Principal District and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
Sessions Judge, Salem, which was taken on file in C.A.No.69 of 2018 and the
same was made over to the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, by
judgment dated 23.04.2019, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the
same, the petitioner is now before this Court with the present criminal
revision case.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner never received any amount and he never promised to get a
Mini Bus Permit to the defacto complainant. There is no ingredients attracting
Section 420 IPC. Even though, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court
have not found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section
506 (ii), but erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner has
committed offence under Section 420 IPC. The defacto complainant made
allegation against the petitioner that he gave Rs.4,60,000/- believing the
promise said to have made by the petitioner to get a Mini Bus Permit. There
is no single piece of proof for the payment of Rs.4,60,000/- by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
It is to be noted that no person will pay such a huge sum of money without
getting any document authorization. Hence the very payment itself is not
proved by the prosecution and there is no question of committing offence
under Section 420 IPC. Both the Courts below have wrongly convicted the
petitioner without any proof and only based on the interested witnesses,
conviction has been recorded against the petitioner, which warrants
interference.
4 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
petitioner would submit that P.W.1 is complainant and the petitioner received
a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- from P.W.1 and P.W.5 and promised to get a Mini
Bus Permit and based on such assurance only P.Ws.1 & 5 have paid the
amount. But, the petitioner has not given any Permit as promised by him and
hence when P.Ws.1 and 5 demanded the money, the petitioner threatened
them with dire consequence and cheated the defacto complainant. In fact the
petitioner admitted that he received money from the defacto complainant, but
he took a defence that he repaid the amount, but there is no proof for the
same. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC, which
does not call for any interference of this Court.
5 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police
and perused the materials available on record.
6 It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner on a false
promise in order to cheat the defacto complainant has received a sum of
Rs.4,60,000/- from P.W.1 and P.W.5. The petitioner did not get any permit
for P.Ws.1 & 5 as promised by him and when P.W.1 demanded money, the
petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the present case has
been registered against him.
7 This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot
exercise power of the Appellate Court and this Court, being a revisional
Court, cannot sit in the arm chair of appellate Court and it has no power to re-
assess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. Further, while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
deciding the revision, the Court can only see whether there is any perversity
in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below.
8 It is seen that charges were framed against the petitioner for the
offence under Section 420 and 506(ii) of IPC and after trial, the trial Court
not found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC and
found guilty for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. A perusal of the
records show that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he received
a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- from P.Ws.1 & 5 and assured to get Mini Bus Permit.
P.Ws.1 & 5 during examination as witness have clearly deposed that the
petitioner received a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- for getting Mini Bus Permit, but
the petitioner neither got a Permit nor repaid the money. When P.Ws.1 & 5
asked to repay the money, since the petitioner could not get a Permit as
promised by him, but he did not repay the amount fully and he paid only
Rs.1.00 lakh. It is seen that during cross examination, the petitioner did not
dispute the fact of receiving of money and also did not dispute the fact that he
is working President of Mini Bus Operators Association. During cross
examination, the petitioner has put a suggestion that P.Ws.1 & 5 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
Financiers and they are lending money for exorbitant interest and in order to
extract money, false case has been foisted, but, however, the petitioner in
cross examination has admitted that he received money from the defacto
complainant. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 5, prosecution has proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence this Court does not find any
perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below.
9 Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. The trial
Court is directed to secure the petitioner to undergo remaining period of
imprisonment, if any.
24.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
cgi
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
3. The Inspector of Police, Pallappatty Police Station, Salem.
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
