P.V.Rajah @ Varadharaj vs State Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 18262 Mad

                                                                     CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED :07.09.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                               CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

                     CRL.R.C.No.659 of 2019

                     1. P.V.Rajah @ Varadharaj
                        S/o, Palanisamy

                     2. V.Usha @ Usharani
                        W/o, P.V.Rajah
                                                                                      ... Petitioners

                                                           Versus
                     State represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Crime Branch CID,
                     Namakkal.                                                       ... Respondent

PRAYERin CRL.R.C.No.659 of 2019: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 03.06.2019 confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal in C.C.No.65 of 2010 dated 25.09.2014.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                     CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019


                                       For Petitioners     : Mr.R.Karthikyan

                                       For Respondent      : Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                             Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)

                     CRL.R.C.No.741 of 2019


                     N.Subramani
                     S/o, NagiChettiyar                                               ... Petitioner

                                                           Versus
                     State represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Crime Branch CID,
                     Namakkal.                                                       ... Respondent

PRAYER in CRL.R.C.No.741 of 2019: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 03.06.2019 confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal in C.C.No.65 of 2010 dated 25.09.2014.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh

For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

COMMON ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the

judgment dated 03.06.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2014

passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming

the judgment dated 25.09.2014 passed in C.C.No.65 of 2010 on the file

of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners

in Crl.R.C.No.659 of 2019 for the offence under sections 120(B), 120(B)

r/w 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and against the petitioner in

Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2019 for the offence under sections 120(B), 120(B)

r/w 419, 420, 465 468 IPC. After investigating the matter, laid a charge

sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The learned

Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.65 of 2010. After

completing the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused 1 and

2 for the offence under section 120(B) r/w 419 IPC and sentenced to

undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

each in default to undergo three months Simple imprisonment and further

the accused 1and 2 were also convicted for the offence under sections

420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo three years

Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence, in

default to undergo 6 months Simple imprisonment for each offence and

the third accused was convicted for the offence under section 419 I.P.C

and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months Simple

Imprisonment and he was also convicted for the offence under sections

420, 465, 468 IPC, sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous

Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence in default to

undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment for each offence. Challenging

the said judgment of conviction and sentence, all the accused filed the

criminal appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The

learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the appeal on file in Crl.A.No.66

of 2014 and after conclusion of the arguments advanced on either side,

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate passed in C.C.No.65 of 2010. Challenging the said judgment

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

of conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2 have filed Crl.R.C.659 of

2019 and the third accused filed the Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2019 before this

Court. Since both the revision cases are arising out of the judgment in

Crl.A.No.65 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Namakkal, both the cases heard jointly.

3. The case of the prosecution is that during the period from

27.05.1998 to October 2000, the first accused is the Director of Sri

Prasanna Vinayagar Textiles Private Limited and the second accused,

Managing Director of the abovesaid institution, obtained a loan amount

of Rs.22,00,000/- from the Bank, by producing fake documents. The

third accused, who is the relative of the accused A1 and A2, assisted

them in their illegal activities. Hence the complaint.

4. The trial court framed the charges as against the petitioners for

the offence under section 120(B) r/w.419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. In

order to substantiate the charges, on the side of the prosecution, totally

21 witnesses were examined and 45 documents were marked. On the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

side of the defence, one witness was examined and three documents were

marked. P.W.1 is the Manager of the Canara Bank. Prosecution evidence

shows that the petitioners produced the forged documents. The

petitioners 1 and 2 obtained a loan amount of Rs.22,00,000/- from the

Bank and failed to repay the amount. On verification, it is found that the

documents produced by the petitioners to the Bank are forged one.

Therefore, they filed a complaint before the respondent police. The

respondent police registered the case as against the petitioners and

investigated the matter, laid a charge sheet before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Namakkal. On completion of trial, hearing the arguments

advanced on either side, perused the materials, the trial court framed the

charges as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not produced the original documents

which were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The prosecution

has not taken any effective steps to produce the original documents

which are on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

xerox copy of the documents, it cannot be stated that the documents were

forged. Therefore, without producing the original documents, the trial

court wrongly convicted the petitioners. As far as the third accused is

concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no

witness has spoken that he impersonated one Srinivasan and put the

signature in the documents and no witness has spoken about the

development of the third accused in the said act and therefore, the

learned counsel for A3 would submit that no witness has spoken about

that they have seen A3 impersonated one Srinivasan and put the signature

in the documents and also obtained the loan along with A1 and A2 from

the defacto complainant Bank and therefore the trial court failed to

appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and wrongly convicted the

petitioners.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

7. On a reading of the entire materials, both the trial court and the

appellate court rightly re-appreciated the evidence, since A1 and A2 have

not denied the borrowal of loan from the Bank, after furnishing the

documents and obtaining opinion from the panel lawyers and now the

case is also pending against the petitioners before the Debt Recovery

Tribunal. All the original documents are in the file of the Tribunal.

Therefore, under these circumstances, the prosecution is not in a position

to file the original documents since all the original documents are in the

Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the non-production/non marking of

the original documents is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the

xerox copies of all the documents have been marked before the trial court

and the petitioners have not objected that the xerox copies of the

documents are not the xerox copies of the original documents which are

produced before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the non-

marking of the original documents is not fatal to the case of the

prosecution.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

8. The trial court as well as the appellate court, the court of fact

finding, appreciated the entire evidence that A1 and A2 obtained the loan

from the Bank by producing all the documents. A3 is also working as

Manager and he is the relative of A1 and A2, helped them to forge the

documents. Therefore, the trial court as well as the appellate court also

appreciated that A1 and A2 have committed the offence under section

420(B) r/w 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and the third accused has

committed the offence under sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 IPC.

9. On a perusal of the records and from the reading of the

evidence, it is found that, obtainment of loan from the bank by A1 and

A2 is not in dispute and the production of the documents are also not in

dispute. Those documents are on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal

is also not in dispute. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, the revisional court cannot re-appreciate or revisit and the

entire materials as the trial court or the appellate court and the revision

court has to see as to whether there is any perversity in the appreciation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

of evidence and in the judgment. On a reading of the entire materials and

the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courts does not find any

perversity in the appreciation of the evidence and when it is not possible

to prove the offence under section 120(B) I.P.C and the same could be

proved through circumstantial evidence also in this case based on the

documentary evidence, prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt.

10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since A1

and A2 are not denied regarding the production of documents for

obtaining loan, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

judgment of the both the Courts below. The learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the entire loan amount has been repaid.

Proceedings before the DRT was closed. Admittedly, the loan amount

was secured only during pendency of the appeal, therefore, subsequent

repayment of the loan will not absolve the petitioners of their liability.

Therefore the learned District Judge, dismissed the appeal. Under this

circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

Courts below and there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable

to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are

dismissed.

07.09.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mfa

To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa

CRL.R.C.Nos.659 & 741 of 2019

07.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/