Madras High Court
S.Ramamurthy vs State By Inspector Of Police on 10 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
S.Ramamurthy .. Petitioner
Versus
State by Inspector of Police
C.C.I.W., C.I.D,
Tiruvannamalai,
(Cr.No.2/2007) .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for records from the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Vellore
in Crl.A.No.61 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013 and order to revise the judgment of the
learned I Additional District Judge, Vellore in C.A.No.61 of 2011, dated
24.07.2013, consequently, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the
revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore in C.C.No.47
of 2009, dated 11.02.2011 and acquitting the petitioner from all the charges.
For Petitioner : Dr.S.Padma
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013 is filed by the
petitioner/accused No.1, namely Ramamurthy, S/o.Somukon, aggrieved by the
judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, dated 11.02.2011 in
C.C.No.47 of 2009 by finding him guilty of the offence under Section 408 of
Indian Penal Code and imposing a punishment of one year Rigourous
Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple
Imprisonment and the judgement of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Vellore in Crl.A.No.61 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013, thereby, confirming the
conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
2. On 11.08.2006, P.W.1, the Special Officer of the Co-operative Society,
based on an report under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act forwarded
a complaint, on the basis of which P.W.4, Manoharan, registered a case in
Cr.No.2 of 2007 and took up the case for investigation and laid a chargesheet as
against the petitioner hearin being the first accused and four other accused. The
same was taken on file as C.C.No.47 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Vellore. Upon appearance of the accused, copies were furnished as per
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon being questioned, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
accused denied the charges and stood trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17. Upon being questioned about the
material evidence on record and the incriminating circumstances, as per Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same.
Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defense. The 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
judgement, dated 11.01.2011, even though acquitting A2 to A4, convicted the
first and fifth accused alone. The Trial Court held that the first accused is guilty
for an offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code and the fifth accused, for
an offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as above.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused, namely Ramamurthy, filed
Crl.A.No.61 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge
Vellore. As far as the fifth accused is concerned, it seems that he has, since,
passed away. Under these circumstances, the learned I Additional District
Judge, Vellore, independently appraised the evidence on record and after
considering the contentions made on behalf of the appellant, concluded that there
has been no payment as per the Ex.P-11, daily ledger and therefore, confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
the guilt of the accused and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved
by the said judgement, the present Revision is laid before this court.
4. Dr.S.Padma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would submit that in this case, the basis of the charge itself is erroneous. She
would submit that firstly, even on a perusal of the Trial Court judgement in
paragraph No. 9, it can be seen that is not the case where the fifth accused has
given any false document claiming ownership of any land. In the relevant
column, no lands were specified as being owned by A5, since, A5 did not own
any land.
5. On the other hand, he was only cultivating the land belonging to the
others and that is why even in the loan application, rightly, no ownership of any
land has been specifically mentioned. This apart, in order to make out an offence
under Section 408 of I.P.C as well as Section 406 of I.P.C, misappropration of
money or non-repayment of loan is an important ingredient. In this case, the
complaint itself was dated 11.08.2006, but, however, even before the complaint,
on 30.04.2006 itself, vide receipt No.270088, the entire loan outstanding
including interest and penal interest are paid by Zarina, wife of the fifth accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
and due receipt has been issued for a total sum of Rs.110,256/- by the society
itself. The said receipt is very much part of the 81 enquiry proceedings. She
would also further relay upon a certificate issued by the Special Officer of the
society in certificate No.3272, thereby, categorically clarifying that no amount is
due in respect of the said loan.
6. This being the position, it is her submission that the very basis of the
charge that a sum of Rs.62,417/- has been misappropriated/defrauded is factually
incorrect and therefore, the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court went
on an erroneous footing as if after obtaining loan, there was no repayment and
P.W.4, the Investigating Officer, did not even investigate as to this basic fact and
went merely on the 81 Enquiry Report submitted by the Co-operative Society
officials without any application of mind whatsoever.
7. Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing on behalf of the prosecution would submit that even though it was not
mentioned in the appropriate column about the particulars of the land, in the other
column in the application, it is mentioned as if A5 was owing Ac.6.00 acres of
land, which amounts to misrepresentation. The mere fact that they have repaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
the amount or that the Government has waived the loan amount will not absolve
them from the offences and therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court has
correctly come to the conclusion as to the guilt of the petitioner/accused A1 and
A5 and therefore, he would pray that this Revision should be dismissed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side
and perused the material evidence on record including the 81 Enquiry Report
and the documents submitted by the prosecution. It is clear from the receipt,
dated 30.04.2006, which is signed by the Secretary of the H.H.583, Nallavan
Palayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society in serial No.270088 that one
Zarina, wife of the fifth accused had paid the entire amount due in respect of the
subject matter loan, whereby, it is seen that the loan amount of Rs.62,417/-, and
interest amount of Rs.13,715/-, penal interest of Rs.525/- and charges of
Rs.100/- in all totalling to Rs.76,792/- has been received. The same was done on
30.04.2006 itself, while the complaint, in this case, has been forwarded as if the
amount remains unpaid and the society has been put to loss only on 11.08.2006
,which is factually incorrect. In that view of the matter, the very basis of the
charge is factually erroneous and therefore, the said fact has been overlooked by
the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court and therefore, the I am of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
view that in exercise of the powers of revision, this is a fit case for interference
and I hold that in view of the repayment of the money coupled with the fact that
no false claim of any survey numbers is made, by producing any forged
document, A1 and A5, in this case, did not commit any offence whatsoever and
therefore, the findings of the guilt by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate
Court is erroneous.
9. The Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013 is allowed.
The judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore in C.C.No.47 of
2009, dated 11.02.2011 and the judgment of the learned I Additional District
Judge, Vellore in Crl.A.No.61 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013 are set aside. The
petitioner is acquitted of the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be
refunded to him.
10.01.2022
Index : yes
Speaking order
grs
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
1.The I Additional District and Session Judge, Vellore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras.
4.The Inspector of Police
C.C.I.W., C.I.D,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
