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
(in both Crl.R.Cs)
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 Petitioners : 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 accused denied the charges and stood trial. Thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
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 the guilt of the accused and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
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
1.The I Additional District and Session Judge, Vellore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1130 of 2013
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
