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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
Principal District and 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
Rs.4,60,000/- by the petitioner. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
appreciated the evidence on record 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
re-assess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. Further,
while deciding the revision, the Court cannot conduct rowing enquiry and it
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 shows 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2019
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
