Madras High Court
Natarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2021
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :09.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
1.Natarajan
S/o, Ganesan
2. Rajesh,
S/o, Natarajan ... Petitioners
Versus
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore,(Vepery),
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the
judgment dated 30.09.2019 in Crl.A.No.26 of 2019 passed by the learned
II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur
District, by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Poonamalle, Thiruvallur District in C.C.No.222 of 2009 dated
29.01.2019 and set aside the same by allowing the above Criminal
Revision Petition.
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr,M.Sugendran
Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the
records pertaining to the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed in
Crl.A.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District, confirming the order
dated 29.01.2019 passed in in C.C.No.222 of 2009 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamalle, Thiruvallur District.
2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners
and another person in Crime No.471 of 2007 for the offence under
Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 471 and 420 I.P.C. After investigation,
laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee,
Tiruvallur District. The learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file
and taken cognizance of the offence in C.C.No.222 of 2009. After trial,
the learned Magistrate, convicted the accused/petitioners herein for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
offence under sections 120(b), 419, 420, 471, 465 and 467 I.P.C and for
the offence under section 120(b) I.P.C, sentenced them to undergo six
months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
undergo, two months simple imprisonment, for the offence under section
419 I.P.C., sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple
imprisonment, for the offence under section 420 I.P.C, two years simple
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two
months simple imprisonment, for the offence under section 471 I.P.C,
sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment, for
the offence under section 465 I.P.C, sentenced them to undergo one year
simple imprisonment, and for the offence under section 467 I.P.C,
sentenced them undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment.
Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant
filed the appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tirvallur in C.A.No.26 of 2019. The learned Principal District Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
Judge, Tiruvallur made over the same to the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Thirvallur at Poonamallee. The Appellate Court after
hearing the arguments advanced on either side, convicted the petitioners
and confirmed the sentence on A1 to A3 and extended the benefit of
Section 360 Cr.P.C, to A3 alone. Challenging the said judgment of
dismissal of appeal, A1 and A2 filed a present Revision before this Court.
During the pendency of Revision, A1 died. Now A2 alone, facing this
revision case.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit
that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Both the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the
evidences and materials, wrongly convicted all the accused for the
charged offences. Though benefit of doubt extended to A3 alone and she
was acquitted by the Appellate Court, the same benefit of doubt should
have been extended to this revision petitioner also. The trial court as
well as the appellate court failed to consider the fact that the revision
petitioners are not at all the beneficiaries in this issue. The defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
complainant lodged a complaint with frivolous allegations against the
first petitioner without any fault on him. The second petitioner is also
not aware of all the consequences of the fact. The prosecution miserably
failed to make out the case against the petitioners who are not the
beneficiaries in the case. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence
that the first petitioner is an illiterate and he could not ascertain the
contents of the alleged sale deed executed by A3 and the second
petitioner attested his signature in the alleged sale deed without knowing
the consequences in his tender age. Therefore, the petitioners are not
understanding the purpose for which they signed it, simply they stand as
only witnesses. They are innocent and they have not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. The trial court failed to appreciate
the evidence and wrongly convicted the petitioners and the Appellate
Court also simply endorsed the views of the Magistrate without
considering the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioners,
which warrants interference of this Court.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the respondent would submit that the signatures of the petitioners in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
the sale deed were proved. A1 and A2 stood as witness that as if A3 is
the owner of the property, knowing fully well that A3 is not the owner of
the property. Once the signature is proved and they stood as witnesses
and also they impersonated by substituting A3 in the plea of defacto
complainant, they forged the documents. Therefore, they cheated P.W.3.
Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the
revision petitioners. Though the trial court convicted A3, the appellate
court granted the benefit under section 360 Cr.P.C on admonishion to A3
alone. During the pendency of the revision A1 died and only the second
petitioner faced the revision. The prosecution proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. There is no merit in the revision and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.
6. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
Vanaja borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from A1 on depositing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
original title deed as security. After she repaid the said sum along with
interest, she requested A1 to return the original documents. A1 did not
do so and fraudulently, substituting A3 in the place of original owner and
by representing that A3 as Vanaja, executed a deed of sale deed in favour
of one Prema Mohan/P.W.3. A1 and A2 stood as witnesses to the
forged/fabricated documents. Hence the complaint.
7. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant,
on the side of the prosecution, totally 10 witnesses were examined, 28
documents were marked. On the side of the defence, one witness was
examined and two documents were marked. It is the specific allegation
against the petitioners is that they cheated the defacto complainant and
sold the property in favour of P.W.3. and they attested their signatures in
the forged sale deed executed in favour of P.W.3 by A3. Hence they
committed the offence under sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 471
and 420 I.P.C. In this case, the prosecution proved that the petitioners
attested the documents and impersonated A3 in the place of original
owner of the property mentioned in the document. It is proved that A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
and A2 were stood as attestors and A3 said to have executed the sale
deed in favour of P.W.3, in the place of the original owner of the
property. Therefore, they committed the charged offences.
8. Therefore, under this circumstances, both the Courts below
rightly appreciated the evidence that A1 to A3 cheated P.W.3 as if A3 is
the owner of the property and A1 and A2 also attested that A3 is only
Vanaja, who is the owner of the property. Therefore, prosecution also
rightly appreciated the evidence orally and documentary, convicted them.
There is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Already appellate court granted the benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C to A3 at
admonition. A1 is the first petitioner who died already and now the
revision is faced only by the second petitioner.
9. The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted
the petitioner for the charged offences and the Appellate Court also
confirmed the sentence passed by the trial court. It is a well settled
proposition of law that the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm chair of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
the appellate court and re-appreciate the entire evidence as the Appellate
Court. It has to see only the perversity in appreciation of the evidence by
both the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. On a reading of the
entire materials, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment
of both the Courts below when especially, the prosecution proved that the
document and signature found in the alleged sale deed said to have been
executed by one Vanaja in favour of P.W.3 and knowing fully well that
A3 is not Vanaja and they impersonated A3 as Vanaja and executed the
sale deed in favour of P.W.3. Therefore, they cheated both
Vanaja/defacto complainant as well as P.W.3. Therefore, the trial court
rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the petitioner. There is no
merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
09.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mfa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mfa
To
1.The II Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Poonamallee,
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Poonamalle,
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
CRL.R.C.No.1052 of 2019
09.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
