Madras High Court
C.Venkatesan vs State By on 6 December, 2021
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.1295 of 2014
C.Venkatesan ... Petitioner
Versus
State By:
Inspector of Police,
Team XII,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai. ... Respondent
( Crime No.448 of 2002)
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.A.No.116 of 2013,
on the file of the Learned XVII-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, at
Chennai, and made in C.A.No.116 of 2013, dated 04.12.2014, confirming
the Judgment of conviction and modifying the sentence passed by the
Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in
C.C.No.12271 of 2004, dated 29.05.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr. Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr.L.Bhaskaran,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/first
accused, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.05.2013 passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, George Town, Chennai, in
C.C.No.12271 of 2014, thereby, convicting the accused/petitioner for the
offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC., and imposing a sentence of
one year Simple Imprisonment for each of the offences and also fine
amount of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of IPC., in default
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month, which was
confirmed by the Judgment of the learned XVI – Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.A.No.116 of 2013, but modifying the sentence
of imprisonment alone as six months instead of one year imposed by the
Trial Court.
2. On 12.06.2002 the complaint given by PW.1/ Govindammal
was forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the Central
Crime Branch, Egmore. Upon which, PW.16/Gopalakrishnan, registered a
case in Crime No.448 of 2002 for the alleged offences under Sections 420
and 120(b) of IPC., against the petitioner viz., C.Venkatesan, his mother
Rani Chinnasamy, his wife Prabhavathi, one Santhi and Vijaya. After
investigation, PW.17/Balasubramanian, laid a charge sheet against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
accused before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.III, George Town,
Chennai, proposing all the five accused guilty for the offences under
Sections 406, 420 & 120(B) of IPC., and the same was taken on file as
C.C.No.12271 of 2004.
3. Upon being questioned, the accused denied all the charges
against them as false and stood for trial. The prosecution examined
PW.1/Govindammal, the first informant as PW.1 and 14 other individuals,
as who participated in the Chit, run by the accused persons and lost their
money, as PW.2 to PW.15. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered
the First Information Report was examined as PW.16 and the Investigation
Officer as PW.17. The complaint lodged by PW.1 was marked as Ex.P1;
The complaint lodged by PW.13 is marked as Ex.P2 and the complaint
lodged by PW.15 is marked as Ex.P3. The First Information Report is
marked as Ex.P4 and the prosecution rested its case.
4. Upon question with reference to the evidence let in against the
accused and the incriminating circumstances, all the accused denied the
same as false evidence. No evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.
5. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, proceeded to hear the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned
Counsel for the accused and by Judgment dated 29.05.2013, found that
there is clear evidence as far as the first accused is concerned and since
the second accused viz., Rani, the mother of the first accused died pending
trial the charges against her are abated. The Trial Court further found that
PW.1 to PW.15 have not clearly spoken about the role of the other accused
3 to 5 and therefore acquitted them. The Trial Court found the petitioner/
first accused alone guilty. It had found that a total sum of Rs.4,94,365/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand and Three Hundred and Sixty
Five only) has been defrauded by the petitioner/first accused by
conducting a Chit and failing to repay the amount to the innocent public
who participated in the Chit namely PW.1 to PW.15 and imposed sentence
of one year imprisonment each for the offence of Sections 420 & 406 of
IPC., and with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.,
6. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused / petitioner herein
filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.116 of 2013 before the Learned XVII –
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and by Judgment dated
04.12.2014, the Learned Appellate Judge independently appreciated the
evidence on record and found that from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.15,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
the charges against the accused/petitioner herein stood proved. And the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the
evidence are contradictory and there is no documentary evidence to prove
the charges were rejected, as without any merits and conviction was
confirmed. However, the Lower Appellate Court reduced the sentence of
imprisonment alone from one year to six months.
7. Heard Mr.Sasikumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who
would submit that the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court deserves to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction as the
findings are perverse in nature. He submit that absolutely, there was no
piece of paper has been seized by the investigating officer in the
investigation nor it has been produced through PW.1 to PW.15 either to
prove that they have paid the money to the first accused/petitioner herein
or to prove that it is the petitioner who is actually conducting the Chit.
Further, apart from the victim viz., PW.1 to PW.15 no independent
witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the charges. Thirdly,
the amounts said to have been lost by the victims in the Chit have not been
proved. Taking into account the socio economic position in which PW.1
to PW.15 are placed, their evidence appears to be unnatural. He would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
further submit that as a matter of fact, there was violence committed
against the petitioner/first accused and earlier a case was registered as
against the persons who attacked him, but those facts were suppressed in
the complaint. Therefore, PW.1 to PW.15 had motive to depose against
the petitioner/first accused and their evidence should be disbelieved in the
absence of corroborative documentary evidence or independent witnesses.
Even from the evidence of the Investigation Officer, it would be clear that
he could not recover any paper whatsoever. The petitioner was convicted
without any legally acceptable evidence. Therefore, he submits that it is a
case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. Mr.L.Bhaskaran, Learned Government Advocate (crl.side)
appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that at the outset the
contention that no papers were seized is totally without any merits
because even as per the evidence of PW.1 to PW.15 the entire chit
transactions were conducted orally. It was also stated that it was the
petitioner who conducted the Chit. The Chit itself was run illegally and no
records were maintained nor any receipt was given, so as to enable the
prosecution to seize and produce the same. All the 15 victims have
categorically stated before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
about the payment of money to the petitioner towards the chit and upon on
appreciating all the evidence, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences.
Thus, the findings of the courts below are based on the material evidence
and this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction need not interfere with
the findings of the Courts below. He would further submit that the hapless
victims have lost their money and till date nothing could be recovered from
the petitioner/ first accused.
9. In reply thereon, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner/accused is also suffering from chronic diabetics
and had also suffered a stroke and his right hand and leg are paralysed and
without help he cannot even move. His physical condition is such that he is
unable to perform his work. Even though he was initially working as an
Auto driver, now, he is extreme under penury, therefore, interference of
this Court is warranted.
10. I considered the rival submissions made by the Learned
Counsel on either side and gone through the materials on record.
11. I am in agreement with the submission of the Learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
Government Advocate for the respondent that the 15 witnesses examined
have all deposed in tandem about the chit, which was illegally conducted
by the petitioner/accused and his mother, and then in unfair and in a
calculated manner, they have not repaid the amount and cheated them. No
exception can be taken on the finding of the guilt of the petitioner recorded
by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for the offences
under Section 406 and 420 of IPC., which stood conclusively proved. As
rightly pointed out by the Learned Government Advocate (crl.side) when
the transactions are oral in nature no documentary evidence or any receipt
can be produced by the prosecution.
12. I also reject the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the to
consider the socio economic conditions of the victims and that the
transactions appear to be unnatural. The amounts are is said to have been
collected by conducting Chit. It is the petitioner, who runs the Chit and
depending upon the amount of Chit, the investors invested their hard
earned money. As far as the earlier case is concerned, it cannot be treated
as case and counter as it is not in the same course of transaction and
therefore not mentioning about the same cannot in any manner affect the
finding of guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. The Trial Court and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
First Appellate Court have rightly convicted the petitioner/accused.
13. As far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is
brought to my notice that the petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2000 and
was in custody for a period of 8 days, pending trial. Similarly pending this
revision, purusant to the NBW issued against the petitioner he was in
custody for 11 days.
14. Considering, the nature of the offence; the intermittent
periods of incarceration undergone by the petitioner/accused; the medical
condition of the petitioner that he is a chronic diabetic, which has led to
paralytic attack and he is immobilised due to the effect of paralysis attack
on right leg and right hand; the condition of the petitioner is such that he
has to rely upon others even for his mobility; I am inclined to modify the
sentence of imprisonment alone by reducing it from six months to one
month and after setting off the period of incarceration that he has already
undergone the petitioner /accused shall undergo the remaining period of
sentence. The fine amount is confirmed.
15. Considering the request made by the Learned Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
petitioner/accused by stating the medical condition of his client, fifteen
days (15 days) time , from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is
granted to the petitioner/first accused to surrender before the Trial Court to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.
16.The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed as indicated
above.
06.12.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes
Speaking order
klt
To
1.The XVII-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
klt
Crl.R.C. No.1295 of 2014
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
