Madras High Court
D.Suresh Kuamr Kochar vs The State on 6 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281 of 2020, 2, 5, 6 & 7 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8995 of 2020, 17, 26, 27 & 29 of 2021
D.Suresh Kuamr Kochar
S/o.Dhanraj Kochar ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1281/2020
Sarala
W/o.Inderchand Kochar ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2/2021
Inderchand Kochar
S/o.Dhanraj ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.5/2021
N.Dhanraj Kochar
S/o.Nimichand ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.6/2020
Suresh Kumar Kochar
S/o.Dhanraj Kochar ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.7/2021
Vs.
1.The State,
Rep.by Inspector of Police,
CCB, Chennai – 600 007.
2.Inderchand D.Kochar
S/o.Dhanraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
3.D.Suresh Kumar Kochar
S/o.Dhanraj Kochar
4.Ramesh Kumar Kochar
S/o.Dhanraj Kochar
5.Jithesh Kumar
S/o.I.C.Jain
6.Rajkumari
W/o.Ramesh Kumar Kochar
7.Anitha
W/o.Suresh Kumar Kochar
8.Sarala
W/o.Indirchand Kochar ... Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.1281/2020
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
CCB, Vepery, Chennai. ... Respondent in
Crl.R.C.Nos.2, 5, 6 & 7/2020
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397
r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to
(i) call for records in Crl.M.P.Nos.6789, 7161, 7027, 6788 of 2019 &
3658 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge
of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu;
(ii) set aside the order dated 08th December 2020 passed in
Crl.M.P.Nos.6789, 7161, 7027, 6788 of 2019 & 3658 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.82
of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at
Chengalpattu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/10
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
(iii) direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu to take additional
evidence presented in Crl.M.P.Nos.6789, 7161, 7027, 6788 of 2019 & 3658 of
2018 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of
Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
For Petitioners
In Crl.R.C.No.1281/2020,
2, 6 & 7 of 2021 : Mr.A.Ramesh
Senior Counsel for B.A.Sujay Prasanna
In Crl.R.C.No.5 of 2021 : Mr.G.Prabhakar
For Respondent
In both petitions : Mr.A.Madhan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
[for R1 in Crl.R.C.No.1281/2020]
*****
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are the appellants before the Sessions Court and arrayed
as A3, A8, A2 and A1 in the criminal case before the trial Court and the
respondent prosecution registered the case against the petitioners herein for the
offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 & 120(B) IPC. After trial,
the trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Sections 409 IPC r/w. 109 IPC and 120 (B) IPC and sentenced them to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in
default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
2. Challenging the said judgments, all the petitioners have filed a
common appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu,
Kanchipuram, in C.A.No.82 of 2017 and during the argument they filed the
petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.6789, 7161, 7027, 6788 of 2019 & 3658 of 2018
under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to adduce additional evidence. After considering the
same, the petitions were dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioners have
filed the present revisions.
3. Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.B.A.Sujay
Prasana, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.1281/2020, 2, 6 & 7
of 2021 would submit that though the petitioners have enough documents to
disprove the case of the prosecution and prove the case of the defence, did not
file the same as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore, they have not filed these documents. However, the trial Court
failed to consider the same that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
the case and fastened the liability on the petitioners. The learned District Judge
expressed his view that the defence failed to prove their case and therefore,
convicted all the accused and at the time of arguments in appeal, the learned
District Judge expressed his view that the defence would have disproved the
prosecution case by producing necessary documents. The petitioners have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
ample documents to disprove the case of the prosecution and prove the defence.
However, the Appellate Court dismissed the Crl.M.P.s' on the ground of delay
and laches and that during the investigation, some of the petitioners approached
for quashing the charge sheet and failed and went upto the Supreme Court and
they have also faced the trial and that now in order to protract the appeal, they
have come forward with the present petition.
4. The Appellate Judge failed to look into the relevant documents
and the relevant documents are very much connected to this case. With the
above documents, the petitioners would very much establish their defence and
it would be helpful to the petitioners and if the documents come to the Court
and permitted to be lead in evidence, the judgment would be otherwise and
therefore, an opportunity to be given to the petitioners.
5. Mr.G.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.R.C.No.5 of 2021 would submit that he also filed a petition under Section
243(2) Cr.P.C. Even though they filed a petition under Section 243 (2) Cr.P.C.
before the trial Court, the trial Court dismissed the petition without looking into
the merit of the petition and therefore, he also adopts the argument of the
learned Senior Counsel in other aspects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
though the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity, they failed to utilize
the opportunity and they failed to lead the defence evidence and produce these
documents. These documents very much available even at the time of closing
the prosecution evidence and posted for defence witness and even in the appeal
stage, they have not raised any grounds of appeal and they have not filed any
application along with the appeal or on the date of filing the appeal till the
closing of the arguments and reserved for judgment. Subsequently for some
reason the learned District Judge could not pronounce the judgment and the
successor reopened the arguments and at that time after the arguments only,
they filed the petitions before pronouncing the judgment and therefore, the
Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay and that to
protract the case they filed the petitions. There is no merit in the revisions.
Therefore, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. During the
pendency of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, the defacto
complainant approached this Court in Crl.O.P.NO.20159 of 2019. This Court
directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. After passing
of the order by this Court, the petitioners approached the Appellate Court by
way of Crl.M.P.Nos.6789, 7161, 7027, 6788 of 2019 & 3658 of 2018 under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
Section 391 Cr.P.C., to adduce additional evidence. Therefore, the learned
Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions.
7. Heard and perused the records.
8. Admittedly, the case was registered against the petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 & 120(B) IPC and trial Court
after trial convicted the petitioners. Challenging the said conviction, all the
petitioners filed the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in C.A.No.82 of
2017 and the Sessions Judge also heard the argument and reserved for
judgments and for some reason the Judge could not pronounce the order. The
successor came to the office and re-heard the appeal. Since he raised some
queries with the learned counsel for the appellant and the petitioners filed the
applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to receive the additional evidence and
documents. So as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the
documents relied on by the petitioners in the applications before the Appellate
Court were very much available even before conclusion of trial. However,
when the first opportunity was given to the petitioners they have failed to avail
the opportunity either to mark the documents with the prosecution witness or
whenever they lead the defence evidence. However, without expressing any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
opinion on the merit of the case and also merit of the documents, this Court
finds that since all the documents are related to the case, therefore, in order to
give an opportunity to the petitioners, this Court is inclined to allow the
revisions and set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court in
Crl.M.P.Nos.6789, 7161, 7027, 6788 of 2019 & 3658 of 2018. However, all the
documents related to the prosecution were very much available even on the
date of commencement of trial. At the time of initiating the proceeding either
they should have produced the documents before the prosecution witness
during cross examination or the documents in the written statement during the
proceeding under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or by examining defence witnesses and
since they failed to avail the opportunity available to the petitioners before the
trial Court, however, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the
petitioners approached more than once, this Court, by way of other applications
and also fully participated in the trial and all the opportunity given to the
petitioners by the trial Court also, they failed to avail the opportunity. Further it
is pertinent to state that even at the time of filing appeal also they have not filed
the petitions and produced the documents and there is no such grounds taken in
the grounds of appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
9. On perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners, it is seen
that they are relevant to the case. Therefore, the order passed by the Lower
Appellate Court is set aside. However, the delay is solely on the part of the
petitioners. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to
each of the petitioners and the petitioners are directed to deposit the amount to
the Corona relief fund within a period of 15 days i.e., on or before 21.01.2021,
failing which the revisions shall stand automatically dismissed without any
reference to this Court.
10. However, it is made clear that the Lower Appellate Court is
directed either to take such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by a
Magistrate.
11. With the above observation, these Criminal Revisions are disposed
of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.01.2021
bri
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Note:Issue order copy on or before 18/01/2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281/2020,2, 5, 6 & 7/2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
bri
To
The Inspector of Police,
CCB,
Chennai – 600 007.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1281 of 2020,
2, 5, 6 & 7 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8995 of 2020,
17, 26, 27 & 29 of 2021
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
