Madras High Court
K.Subramanian @ A.K.Subbu vs The State Rep. By on 10 November, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Orders Reserved On Orders Pronounced On
25.02.2020 10.11.2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
K.Subramanian @ A.K.Subbu ... Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.282/2018
Pakkirisamy ... Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.68/2019
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Special CBI, ACB, Chennai.
FIR No.RC 34(A)/2006 ... Respondent
in both revisions
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397
and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
judgment made in C.A.No.16 & 9 of 2014 respectively dated 28.02.2017 on
the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.7 of 2007 dated
31.12.2013 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same.
For Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.282/2018 : Mr.C.Muthusavaranan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
For Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.68/2019 : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent
in all revision petitions : Mr.N.Nagendran
Special Public Prosecutor
for CBI Cases
COMMON ORDER
Both Criminal Revisions arise out of judgment from the common
Calender Case in C.C.No.7 of 2007.
2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.282 of 2018 is A1 and petitioner in
Crl.R.C.No.68 of 2019 is A2. There are totally five accused in this case. Two
of them have filed these revisions. All the accused were convicted in C.C.No.
7 of 2007 by a judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli dated
31.12.2013.
3. The petitioner/A1 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.16 of 2014 and
petitioner A2 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.9 of 2014. The II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by separate judgment dated
28.02.2017 dismissed the appeals of the petitioners confirming the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Against which, the present
revisions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
4. During trial on the side of the prosecution 26 witnesses examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.26 and marked 48 documents as Exs.P1 to P48. On the side of
the defence, no witnesses or exhibits marked.
5. The background of the case is that on 22.04.2001, one
Rangarajan/A4, Veeramani/A5 were riding their Bajaj M-80 bike at
Peruvalanallur at about 12.30 p.m. While proceeding towards Lalkudi,
Rangarajan, who was rider of the bike, skidded in a turning, both fell down
and A-4 sustained grievous injuries including fracture. The pillion rider,
A-5/Veeramani sustained simple injury. Thereafter, a complaint lodged on
25.04.2001. The Lalgudi Police registered a case in Crime No.300 of 2001
for offence under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. Later it was closed as mistake
of fact, which was not intimated to the Magistrate Court. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, finding that there has been a delay in filing a
final report, closed the case on 30.05.2003 on the point of limitation.
6. A-1/K.Subramanian, an Advocate, filed a Motor Accident Claim
Petitions in M.C.O.P.No.2310 of 2001 for A4-Rangarajan and M.C.O.P.No.
2396 of 2001 for A5-Veeramani before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
against the National Insurance company. The CBI, Chennai while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
investigating a case in RC 34(A) 2006, it came to the notice that false claim
petitions filed with false particulars and forged documents including the
above case in Crime No.300 of 2001. In the meanwhile, the Insurance
Company, investigator found that many of the claim petitions were filed with
false particulars substituting the claimants/beneficiaries, vehicle and in some
cases accidental fall and injury are projected as road accident cases.
7. There were 5 accidents in Tiruchirappalli District alone. (i) Crime
No.179 of 2001 has been registered by Traffic Investigation Wing,
Contonment Tiruchirappalli for an accident occurred on 08.06.2001, in
which rider of the vehicle was N.Karunamoorthy/M.Karunanidhi and the
vehicle involved is TVS 45 E 4116, (ii) Crime No.204 of 2001 has been
registered by Jeeyapuram Police Station for an accident occurred on
09.07.2001 and the rider of the vehicle shown as Murugesan @
Karunamoorthy with the same vehicle TN 45 E 4116, (iii) Crime No.1051 of
2001 has been registered by Thiruverumbur Police Station for an accident
occurred on 13.10.2001. In this case V.Pakkirisamy is projected as the rider
of the TVS Champ TN 45 E 4116 and (iv) Crime No.559 of 2001 has been
registered by Ramji Nagar Police Station for an accident occurred
07.11.2001 and the rider of the vehicle was projected as Anand and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
vehicle is TN 45 E 4116. Thus including this case there are five cases
projected. In five cases, it has been shown as the vehicle TN 45 E 4116 is
involved in an accident and the rider in three of the cases is M.Karunanidhi
and in two other cases Pakkirisamy and Anand. Five claim petitions filed by
A-1 using false, fabricated documents and also involving others in
conspiracy of cheating. Hence, the Insurance Company filed a writ petitions
before this Court in W.P.No.39956 & 39968 of 2005. This Court directed
CBI to conduct investigation with regard to the false insurance claim and
thus the case came to be re-opened on the directions of this Court and CBI
re-registered the F.I.R. in RC MA1 2006 0053 dated 29.11.2006, conducted
investigation and involvement of five accused found and charge sheet filed.
On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted all the accused and
sentenced them to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence
under Sections 120-B r/w 182 I.P.C., 1 ½ years simple imprisonment for the
offence under Sections 420 r/w 511 I.P.C. and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- to
each of the accused, in default to undergo three months simple
imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
8. The present case is that A-1/K.Subramanian, Advocate, who
predominantly practicing Motor Accident Claims cases. A-2/V.Pakkirisamy, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
Railway Employee, known to A-1. A-3/Karunanidhi is known to A-2.
A-4/Arangarajan and A-5/Veeramani are the rider and pillion of Bajaj M80
vehicle. A-1 and A-2 entered into a conspiracy. As per the conspiracy A-2 to
collect the details about the persons, who got injured in accident and taking
treatment in hospital. They would be approached to give false complaint as
though road traffic accident occurred. It was the duty of A-2 to project the
TVS Champ TN 45 E 4116 purchased by him as the vehicle involved in the
accident. A-3 would be the rider of the vehicle in most of the accident cases.
Using the Insurance coverage of the vehicle, false Motor Accident claim
petitions would be filed.
9. During the period between April 2001 to December 2001, they were
involved in four similar cases. On 22.04.2001, A-4 and A-5 were proceeding
to Lalgudi in the Bajaj M-80 vehicle. The vehicle was driven by
Arangarajan/A-4 and Veeramani/A-5 was the pillion rider. While negotiating
a curve at Poovalur Erikarai, the vehicle got skidded and both of them fell
down. A-4 sustained grievous injury and A-5 sustained small abrasions, both
of them got admitted in the Government Hospital, Lalgudi. Thereafter, as per
the advise of the Medical Officer, both of them referred to Government
Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. A-4 taken treatment as inpatient from 22.04.2001 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
04.05.2001. At the time of admission, A-4 informed that the injury sustained
was due to the skidding of Bajaj M-80 vehicle. The same recorded in the
Accident Register. When he took treatment at Government Hospital,
Tiruchirapalli, an agent of A-1/K.Subramanian met A-4/Arangarajan,
induced him to give a false complaint as though the injury sustained was due
to road accident. Further stated that the accident vehicle, the rider and the
police station formalities can be taken care by A-1, who is an Advocate and
they would also be sufficiently paid for the same. Pursuant to this
arrangement, A-1/K.Subramanian given a copy of the complaint to
A-4/Arangarajan, who handed over the same to the Sub Inspector of Police,
namely, Kandasamy, who enquired him. Thereafter, F.I.R. registered by
Lalgudi police with a new version as projected by A-1. As per the conspiracy,
A-3 appeared before the Police voluntarily and informed that he was the
rider of TVS Champ TN 45 E 4116, which got involved in the accident due
to which, A-4 and A-5 sustained injuries. A-4 got discharged from the
Government Hospital on 04.05.2001 and as per the advise of A-1, A-4 and
A-5 got admitted in the Hindu Mission Hospital, Tiruchirappalli from
04.05.2001 to 09.05.2001. The medical bills were paid by A-1. Furtherance
to the conspiracy, on 27.08.2001, two claim petitions filed viz., (i)
M.C.O.P.No.2310 of 2001 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for A-4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
and (ii) M.C.O.P.No.2396 of 2001 seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for
A-5. Thus all the accused A-1 to A-5 in conspiracy with each other given
false particulars to the public servant and also using the same, attempted to
cheat the Insurance Company. On conclusion of the investigation, charge
sheet filed. The trial Court on considering the evidence and witnesses,
convicted the accused as stated above.
10. The contention of the petitioner/A-1 is that he is practicing
Advocate in Tiruchirappalli, predominantly in filing Motor Accident Claims
cases. He disputed the evidence of P.W.1-Kandasamy, who projected that the
petitioner produced A-3 as the rider of TVS Champ TN 45 E 4116 and also
its documents. He refuted the evidence of P.W.4./Attender of Hindu Mission
Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, who had stated about the regular visitation of the
petitioner/A-1 to the hospital and made payments for the injured person on
four or five occasions. According to the petitioner, he never visited Hindu
Mission Hospital and how come the petitioner's mobile number and name
recorded in Ex.P13, he is not aware. The respondent had created this
document. Likewise, he denied the evidence of P.W.21, which is also on the
similar lines. The petitioner/A-1 has nothing to do with the other accused.
Normally, advocate or advocate clerk's refer cases, hand over documents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
the petitioner to file accident claim petitions and on their instructions he files
claim petitions. It is the usual practice, which is followed even by other
Advocates. The petitioner had brought all these facts by way of cross
examination and also given detailed explanation while questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court failed
to consider the same and the petitioner is convicted merely on surmises and
conjectures.
11. The petitioner/A-2 submitted that the vehicle TVS Champ TN 45 E
4116 is in the name of one S.Anthony Raj, the petitioner is not the owner of
the vehicle. There is no material to show that the petitioner conspired with
the other accused. There are witnesses and evidence to show that the above
vehicle was purchased by Anthony Raj, who thereafter exchanged the vehicle
in a Exchange Mela and the vehicle was purchased by one S.Ravikumar of
Peravoorani. Neither Anthony Raj nor Ravikumar examined as witnesses in
this case. In the absence of the same, the petitioner cannot be held as owner
of the vehicle. A financier has been projected against the petitioner to
implicate the petitioner that he had hypothecated his vehicle, submitted the
documents of Anthony Raj and obtained loan. Further, the stand taken by the
prosecution that the petitioner/A-2 has got 2 Insurance certificate for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
same vehicle one from National Insurance Company and another from the
United India Insurance Company while the 1st insurance policy was still in
force with National Insurance Company, There is no requirement for second
insurance for the same period. The petitioner is also projected as though he
conspired with A-1 to find out the accident victims in various hospitals and
provide particulars to A-1. Further petitoner/A-2 projected as though he has
given assurance to the victims that adequate compensation would be
obtained for them. He further submitted that there is lot of contradiction and
discrepancies between the oral and documentary evidences. Both the Courts
below failed to properly appreciate the same. It is proved that the vehicle
does not stand in the name of the petitioner/A-2. In such circumstances, the
petitioner/A-2 cannot be proceeded and convicted. Hence, the learned
counsels prayed to set aside the judgment dated 28.02.2017.
12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
submitted that the injury sustained by A-4 and A-5 was on 22.04.2001. Three
days thereafter with much delay on 25.04.2001, complaint lodged. In the
meanwhile, A-1 influenced A-4 and A-5 to give a false complaint
suppressing the self fall by them and projecting as though it was a road
traffic accident. A-4 sustained grievous injuries with fracture and A-5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
sustained small abrasions. Thereafter, the Doctor, who treated A-4 and A-5 in
the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli clearly state that at the time of the
admission, A-4 stated that they fell down from their vehicle on their own
while negotiating a turn in the curve. This is recorded in the Accident
Register. The Doctors from the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli,
namely, P.W.3 and P.W.5 have clearly deposed these facts. In pursuant to the
conspiracy, A-4 and A-5 were taken to Hindu Mission Hospital, admitted as
inpatient from 04.05.2001 to 09.05.2001. P.W.4/Attender in the Hindu
Mission Hospital confirmed that A-1 used to bring injured persons to the
hospital and pay for their treatment, collects documents and he has visited
the hospital on four or five occasions. P.W.7 is the Doctor of Hindu Mission
Hospital, who treated A-4 and A-5 from 04.05.2001. P.W.21 is the
Administrative Doctor of the Hindu Mission Hospital, who confirms
petitioner/A-1 regularly visiting the hospital and paying for the treatment of
the injured and collecting documents.
13. In Ex.P13, the petitioner/A-1 particulars recorded. P.W.22, who is
the Advocate Clerk under A-1, admits that two claim petitions filed by A-1
for A-4 and A-5. He also confirms that A-2 and A-3 visits A-1 office often on
previous occasions. The Accident Register recorded in the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
Hospital, Tiruchirappalli and the Accident Register recorded in the Hindu
Mission Hospital, Tiruchirappalli are contrary to each other. All the accused
joined together projected a false case taking advantage of the injury
sustained by A-4 and A-5 as though it is an injury sustained due to road
accident. The witnesses from the insurance company confirm that the vehicle
insured with National Insurance Company. The insurer's name is Anthony
Raj. Further, their internal investigation found that false claim made by the
petitioners. P.W.14 confirms that the vehicle initially sold to Anthony Raj.
P.W.13 confirms that there was an exchange Mela conducted by PLA
Agencies. At that time, Anthony Raj handed over his vehicle along with
signed documents in the Exchange Mela thereafter it got endorsed in the
name of one Ravikumar. In the meanwhile, using the documents of TVS
Champ TN 45 E 4116, A-2 availed hypothecation loan from P.W.16. At that
time, he handed over the vehicle documents to Anthony Raj. He also
produced Form 29 and 30 confirming the change of ownership thereafter
again an insurance taken in the name of A-2. A-3 voluntarily surrendered
before the Ramji Nagar Police.
14. The Sub Inspector of Police, Head Constable confirms about the
voluntary surrender of A-3, production of details of the vehicle and admitting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
that A-3 only caused accident and A-4 and A-5 got injured. Thereafter, the
case closed on the point of limitation. A-3 executed bail bond with surety.
Immediately thereafter, accident claim petitions filed by A-1. Thereafter,
C.B.I. found that all the accused conspired together to cheat the Insurance
Company. The Insurance Act is a benevolent Act for the benefit of injured
and for the person, who lost their life in road accidents, which is attempted to
be misused and the accused planned to enrich themselves by cheating the
Insurance Company. On the directions of this Court, the entire false claim
was investigated, thereby the conspiracy and the forgery in the above cases
came to be unearthed. The petitioners gave false particulars to the public
servant and also played fraud on the Court by giving false particulars,
producing forged documents and used the forged documents as genuine.
15. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 2161 in the case of
Mukesh and another vs. State for NCT of Delhi and others for the point
that in the case of conspiracy under Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything
done by anyone of them in reference to their common intention, is admissible
against the others. He further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in
Crl.A.No.1261-1262 of 2017 dated 01.08.2017 in the case of CBI vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
M.Sivamani, wherein in a case of false accident claim, the High Court held
that false documents were given to public servant and no proceedings can be
initiated in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C, the Apex
Court referring to various citations and further adverting to the orders passed
in W.P.Nos.7389, 39956 and 39968 of 2005 giving direction to entrust the
investigation to CBI forthwith in respect of the complaints filed by the
National Insurance Company as well as other Insurance Companies, held that
in view of the same, the contention of the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police and perused
the materials available on record.
17. Considering the submissions and on a perusal of material, it is seen
that the petitioner/A-1 is an Advocate, who predominantly practise on the
Motor Accident Cases. He filed Motor Accident claim petitions in
M.C.O.P.No.2310 of 2001 for A4-Rangarajan and M.C.O.P.No.2396 of 2001
for A5-Veeramani. During the relevant period, five petitions of similar nature
were filed by A-1 claiming compensation. In all the cases, the vehicle TN 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
E 4116 is projected as vehicle involved in the accident and most of the cases,
A-3 is the rider of the two wheeler. A-2 and A-3 visits A-1 office often,
which is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.22, clerk of A-1. Added to it, A-3
surrendered, confessed about the accident case. Thereafter he was arrested
and then granted bail. P.W.25 executed surety for A-3 at the instance of A-1.
The petitioner/A-1 involvement is not a stray incident. He committed well
orchestrated crime in conspiracy with the other accused. In view of the
forgery and falsity of the claim, which has been made by the petitioners
before the public servants as well as the Court, closure of Crime No.300 of
2019 would not absolve the petitioners from their misdeeds and falsity. The
role played by each of the petitioners are proved in commission of the
offence with the corresponding evidence and witnesses. Documents well
analysed and the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioners. The Lower
Appellate Court independently analysed the evidence and dismissed the
appeals preferred by the petitioners. The finding of the trial Court is a well
reasoned one, which had came to the logical and correct conclusion by
convicting the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
18. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain these
revisions. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.
10.11.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rsi
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Special CBI, ACB, Chennai.
2.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
Pre-delivery common order in
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.282 of 2018 and 68 of 2019
10.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
