Mani vs State By Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 536 Mad

                                                                    Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 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.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

                Mani                                                       .. Petitioner
                                                    (in Crl.R.C.No.31 of 2014)


                S.Ramamurthy                                                  .. Petitioner
                                                     (in Crl.R.C.No.1124 of 2013)

                                                       Versus

                State by Inspector of Police
                C.C.I.W., C.I.D,
                Tiruvannamalai,
                (Cr.No.2/2007)                                          .. Respondent

(in both Crl.R.Cs)

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.31 of 2014: 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 and Session Judge, Vellore in Crl.A.No.60 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013 and ordered to revise the judgment of the learned I Additional and Session Judge, Vellore in C.A.No.60 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.46 of 2009, dated 11.02.2011 and acquitting the petitioner from all the charges.

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1124 of 2013: Criminal Revision Case is filed under

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

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.59 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013 and ordered to revise the judgment of the learned I Additional Judge, Vellore in C.A.No.59 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.46 of 2009, dated 11.02.2011 and acquitting the petitioner from all the charges.

For Petitioners : Dr.S.Padma (in both Crl.R.Cs)

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran (in both Crl.R.Cs) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

COMMON ORDER These Criminal Revision Cases in Crl.R.C.Nos.1124 of 2013 and 31 of

2014 are taken up together for disposal as they arise out of the same case in

Cr.No.2 of 2007 and C.C.No.46 of 2007.

2. On a complaint, dated 11.08.2006, based on 81 Enquiry Report, the

respondent Police registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2007 and P.W.4, Manoharan,

took up the case for investigation, completed the investigation and laid

chargesheet, holding totally five accused, A1 to A5 in these cases as guilty for

the offences under Sections 120(B), 408 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code. The

case was taken on file as C.C.No.46 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

No.II, Vellore.

3. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies were furnished under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and upon being questioned, the accused denied the

charges and stood trial. The prosecution, thereafter, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and

marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and rested its case. Thereafter, 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 as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in by the defence.

4. The Trial Court, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused

and by a judgement, dated 11.02.2011, found that the prosecution failed to

prove the case beyond doubt in respect of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, but, however

found that A1, being the Secretary to the society and A5, being the

member/loan applicant, have categorically committed an offence in as much as

A5 has submitted a false application without owning the lands and A1 having

processed the same, had advanced the loan and causing loss to the society and

therefore, held them guilty. The Trial Court found that the first accused,

namely Ramamurthy, guilty for the offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

Code and sentenced one year Rigourous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/-

and in default of payment of fine, three months Simple Imprisonment and found

that the fifth accused guilty of an offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal

Code and sentenced him to undergo six months Rigourous Imprisonment and a

fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month Simple

Imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused, Ramamurthy, filed

Crl.A.No.59 of 2011 and the fifth accused, Mani, filed Crl.A.No.60 of 2011

before the learned I Additional District Judge, Vellore. By a separate

judgements, dated 24.07.2013, the learned I Additional District Judge, Vellore,

after independently, appraising the evidence and after considering the

arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant, confirmed the conviction and

sentence imposed against both the accused and therefore, aggrieved by the

same, as mentioned above, the above two Revision Cases are laid before this

Court.

6. Dr.S.Padma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners, took this Court through the charge. It is her submission that the

basis of the charge is that without having any land, whatsoever, the fifth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

accused submitted an application for a loan and that the first accused processed

the said loan, by entering into criminal conspiracy and thereby

misappropriating the money belonging to the society to their personal use and

and causing loss to the society. In this connection, she would draw the

attention of this Court to paragraph No.9 of the judgement of the Trial Court,

whereunder itself, it is clearly mentioned that as per Ex.P-7, chitta adangal

submitted by A5, Mani, in support of his loan application, the lands in question

were the lands in survey No.23/7, 23/4, 32/4, and 38/3. The complaint, made

before the Trial Court, was that the said chitta adangal stood in the name of

Narayanasamy.

7. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the

cause title would itself show that the fifth accused, Mani is son of

Narayanasamy. Therefore, the very basis of charge that the fifth accused

submitted a loan application without any lands whatsoever is absolutely

incorrect. To buttress her submission, she would file an additional typed set of

the papers, where, after the death of the father of the fifth accused, namely

Narayanasamy, patta No.58 has been issued in respect of the lands in the very

same survey number, in favour of the fifth accused herein, which would go to

show that both the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court did not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

even consider this very basic fact about the innocence of the fifth accused. She

would further submit that, in this case, there was not even a loss to the society

as by G.O.No.70, dated 13.06.2006, these loans have also been waived by the

Government of Tamil Nadu and by proceedings, dated 10.02.2014, the list of

loans waived by the Government of Tamil Nadu is given by the Co-operative

Society itself and this particular loan, obtained by Mr.Mani, is mentioned in

serial No.58 as having waived. Therefore, according to her, there is no any

criminal conspiracy or fraud played in the matter and there was also no loss to

the society. Therefore, the charge itself was based on a report filed under

Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act which suffers from total non-

application of mind and the I.O i.e., P.W.4, without conducting any

investigation whatsoever, blindly filed the chargesheet and the Courts below

also, without even appreciating this very basic fact, convicted the accused

persons.

8. Per contra, Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate

(Criminal Side) would submit that the subsequent waiver of the loan by the

Government will not in any manner affect the prosecution and he would also

file a detailed counter showing that the 81 enquiry was conducted in this case

and all the evidences were duly gathered and the concerned witnesses were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

examined and therefore, the prosecution has approved its case beyond doubt.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side, have gone

through the material evidence on record. I am in agreement with the learned

Counsel for the petitioner. In this case, the very basis of the charge is that the

fifth accused, Mani, had obtained a loan for agricultural purposes by producing

Ex.P-7, chitta adangal falsely and he did not own the said lands is the basis of

the prosecution case. But a perusl of Ex.P-7 itself, it would be clear that the

land was in the name of Narayanasamy, who is none other than the father of the

petitioner and as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

subsequently, patta No.58 has been changed in the name of the fifth accused,

Mani.

10. It is common knowledge that in respect of the coparcenary lands, the

patta, chitta and adangal normally stand in the name of the elder generation and

thereafter, mutated after the death of the grandfather or the father, as the case

may be. Without even adverting to this basic fact, when the fifth petitioner has

not committed any error whatsoever in making the application, the entire

charge has been laid on an erroneous assumption of fact. The Courts below

also, even though while narrating that the chitta is in the name of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

Narayanasamy, did not even apply their mind, as to this fact. Therefore, I hold

that the charge of the prosecution itself is erroneous and there is no any

commission or omission by A1 to A5 in this matter and therefore, the case of

the prosecution is absolutely incorrect and factually wrong.

11. I hold that the first petitioner and the fifth petitioner have not

committed any offence whatsoever. It is only the matter of repayment of loan,

which is also since been waived by the Government of Tamil Nadu which can

be seen from the documents produced before this court.

12. In that view of the matter, Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

are allowed. The judgement, dated 11.02.2011 of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Vellore in C.C.No.46 of 2009 and the judgements, dated

24.07.2013 of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in

Crl.A.Nos.60 of 2011 and 59 of 2011 are set aside. The accused are acquitted.

Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused, shall be refunded to them.

Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.No.31 of 2014 is closed.

10.01.2022

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

Speaking order grs

To

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.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.31 of 2014 and 1124 of 2013

10.01.2022

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