Umesh vs The State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 434 Mad

                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 07.01.2022

                                           CORAM :
                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                    Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

                Umesh                                                             .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

                The State Rep. by
                The Inspector of Police,
                CCB, St.Thomas Mount Police Station.                            .. Respondent
                Crime No.145 of 2010

                Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
                to set aside the order, dated 15.07.2014 made in C.A.No.5 of 2014, on the file
                of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in confirming
                the judgment, dated 30.12.2013 made in C.C.No.115 of 2012 on the file of the
                learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee and allow the above Criminal
                Revision.

                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.C.Prabakaran

                                   For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
                                               Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014 is filed by the

petitioner/accused, namely Umesh, S/o.Bala Ravindran, aggrieved by the

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

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee in C.C.No.115

of 2012, whereby, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 419, 420,

468, 471 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was imposed with the

punishment of one year Simple Imprisonment and the judgment of the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, dated 15.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.5 of 2014,

thereby, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the

conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

2. P.W.1, Murugesan is working as Assistant General Manager in the

concern in the name and style of 'Satya Agencies', which is in the business of

selling home appliances. While so, on 27.08.2010, the petitioner/accused drove

to the showroom in Honda City Car and came into the shop and pruchased a

Sony L.C.D T.V and Preethi cooker for a sum of Rs.17,800/- and gave a credit

card, bearing serial No.4607173980030690 for a sum of Rs.17,800/- and left

the showroom hastily. However, on the next day only, they received a report

from the bankers about the payment declining report and found that the entire

credit card was a bogus and they also found a laptop kept near the counter for

billing purpose was also missing and therefore, they lodged a complaint.

3. Upon the complaint of P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.145 of 2010 was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

registered and was taken up for investigation by P.W.11, the Inspector of Police

and after completing the investigation, he laid a chargesheet proposing the

petitioner/accused guilty of the above said offences. Upon being questioned,

the petitioner/accused denied the charges and stood trial.

4. The prosecution, thereafter, examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked

Exs.P-1 to P-10 and produced Mos.1 and 2. Upon being questioned about the

material evidence on record under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

the petitioner/accused denied them as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in

on behalf of the defence and Trial Court, therefore, proceeded to hear the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the

learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and by a judgment, dated 20.12.2013

found that the evidence of P.W.1, identifying the petitioner/accused coupled

with the recovery from the accused and the prosecution proven that the credit

card, being a fake one and relying upon the seizure mahazar, Ex.P-3 and the

admissible portion of the confession leading to the recovery held that the

prosecution proved the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 380 of

the Indian Penal Code beyond doubt and sentenced the petitioner/accused as

above.

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

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

5. The petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the above judgment of the Trial

Court, preferred Crl.A.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. The Appellate Court, after independently

appraising the evidence and after considering the conclusions and findings of

the Trial Court, more specifically considering the evidence of P.W.1 to the

effect that the credit card given by the petitioner/accused, as if it is a credit card

given by I.C.I.C.I bank, as forged and bogus one and considering the recovery

of the Laptop stolen by the accused and seizure of the Honda City Car used by

the petitioner/accused, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Case is laid before

this Court.

6. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through

the evidence of P.W.1 and submitted that it can be seen from the evidence of

P.W.1, there is no any concrete or clinching material which can connect the

petitioner/accused to the offence and would further submit that the recovery

made is artificial and unbelievable and the recovered gadges/ appliances which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

are available in the open market and therefore, based on the recovery alone

convicting the petitioner/accused will not be safe and the petitioner should be

given the benefit of doubt. He would further submit that there is delay in

lodging the complaint which would also show that all was not well with P.W.1

and his concern and the complaint is an after thought. He would further submit

that without any proper investigation, just because the petitioner was a

Srilankan national, so as to close the files, P.W.11, investigating officer,

without any evidence whatsoever, has roped in the petitioner as accused in this

case and therefore, this Court should interfere with the findings of the Trial

Court as well as the lowr Appellate Court in exercise of the revisional

jurisdiction as the findings result in grave miscarriage of the justice to the

petitioner and his consent.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said Satya

Agencies, had instaled C.C.T.V in its own premises and the same was very

much available and the same would have been the best and clinching evidence

to show that the accused had, as a matter of fact, came to the premises at the

date and time of occurrence and took away the articles. When the investigation

has miserably failed to let its hands on the best evidence available, the findings

of the Trial Court can adverse at best be considered a presumption and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

therefore, the petitioner/accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. Opposing the above said submissions, the learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution would submit

that in this case, P.W.1 has identified the accused. The accused is a person who

is involved in similar offences and as a matter of fact, there are six similar other

cases pending against him. It is while investigating in a connected case, the

accused was arrested and that is how MO.1 is recovered from him and this case.

As a matter of fact, the recovery has been duly proved by the prosecution and

there is no iota of doubt whatsoever in the case of the prosecution. Further, the

defence did not cross-examine P.W.1, who is the best person to depose whether

there was C.C.T.V footage or not and whether the C.C.T.V images were stored

beyond period of 24 hours or not. Production of C.C.T.V footage was not only

mode to which the prosecution should resort to for proving the case. In this

case, the prosecution has proved the case otherwise and therefore, he would

submit that the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not

deserve acceptance.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the both

sides. I have gone through the material evidence on record and the judgments https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

of the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court. In this case, I am

unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for

the petitioner. Firstly, apart from the articles he purchased by using the fake

credit card, the petitionr/accused also stolen the Lenovo Laptop, which was

used by P.W.1's concern and the same is recovered from the accused and the

serial number has been matched by the prosecution and therefore, the

contention that these articles can be procured from the open market is without

any merits. Similarly, the recovery has been duly proved by the prosecution.

P.W.1 was able to identify the accused. The prosecution has proved that the

credit card is a bogus one and a bogus name has been used by the

petitioner/accused. The Honda City Car used by the petitioner/accused was

also recovered and produced before the Trial Court. In view of the

overwhelming evidence on record I have no hesitation in holding that the

conviction of the petitioner/accused by the Trial Court as well as the first

Appellate Court is in accordance with law. The petitioner/accused is also

involved in six other cases of similar nature and the finding of guilt does not

call for any interference by this Court.

11. On the question of sentence, the learned Counsel submitted that apart

from being in prison for some days, the petitioner, being a Srilankan national, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

was detained in the camp and he has undergone direct and indirect

incarceration and prayed that the same may be taken into account. Considering

the said submissions of the learned Counsel, I am inclined to reduce the

sentence imposed by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court from

the period of one year to that of six months.

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

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

12. The Criminal Revision is partly allowed, as indicated above.

07.01.2022

Index : yes Speaking order grs

To

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras.

4.The Inspector of Police, CCB, St.Thomas Mount Police Station.

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

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.R.C.No.828 of 2014

07.01.2022

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