Madras High Court
Karunamoorthy vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
Karunamoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID,
Chennai. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C, to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions
Judge at Chennai in C.A.No.70 of 2010 dated 20.12.2017 and acquit the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the Judgment
passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai in C.A.No.70 of
2010 dated 20.12.2017 and to acquit the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
2. Heard both sides.
3. There are totally three accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2.
Already, A1 filed a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2012 and this
Court by an order dated 16.04.2019 dismissed the revision and confirmed the
Judgments passed by the Courts below.
4. This Court passed the order in Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2012, dated
16.04.2019, which is as follows,
“The revision petitioner herein is the accused before the trial
Court in C.C.No.6111 of 2003. She along with other two others were
tried for the offence under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 471 and 468
of IPC.
2. The specific case of the prosecution is that this revision
petitioner A.R.Manjula along with one G.Karunamoorthy conspired to
sell a house site bearing plot No.204/A, Bhuvaneswari Nagar,
Velachery, Chennai which stood in the name of D'Souza of Perambur.
In pursuant to the conspiracy, A1 represented the defacto complainant
Kalyani Balakrishnan that the house site is available for sale and
produced photocopy of the title deed to her during the month of
December 1999. In furtherance of the false statement to the defacto
complainant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 16.02.2000 and a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- in 06.03.2000 received by A1 and A2. Also agreement in
favour of the defacto complainant executed as if the said agreement is
executed by D'Souza the title holder of the property. By the time,
D'Souza has already died. Knowing fully well D'Souza is dead but to
cheat and fraudulently misappropriate, the document was fabricated
and the complainant was made to believe that the deed is a genuine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
one. Further, in pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 04.04.2000,
A2[Karunamoorthy] arranged one Rameshkumar[A3] to impersonate
as D'Souza. After collecting the balance sale consideration of
Rs.2,25,000/-, the sale deed was registered in favour of the
complainant. When the defacto complainant, based on the sale deed,
intended to sell the property, she went to the site where she saw some
construction work was going on. When she enquired with the
neighbouring land owners, she came to know that the said D'Souza
expired on 22.08.1992 itself and his legal heirs have alienated the
property to one Vivian. After she came to know about the fraudulent act
of A1 and A2 in connivance with A3 and fraudulently received
Rs.3,75,000/- by impersonation executed the sale deed, she lodged a
complaint. On completion of investigation on her complaint, final
report has been filed.
3. To prove the guilt, the prosecution has examined 31
witnesses 39 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defence, 5
exhibits were marked.
4. The trial Court, considering the evidence let in by the
prosecution as well as the defence, has held that the property which
originally belonged to D'Souza, after demise of D'Souza on 22.08.1992
was sold by his legal heirs to Vaithi Venkatesan (PW-17) through
Muralidaran (PW-13) and Geetha (PW-16), whereas A1 and A2 had
made the defacto complainant to believe that the said property is
available for sale and entered into the sale agreement (Ex.P6) dated
20.03.2000 in the name of D'souza. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been
received by A1 and she has given receipts (Exs.P3 and P5) to PW-1.
Later, the sale deed was executed by A2. The sale deed (Ex.P7) dated
04.04.2000 in favour of the defacto complainant as if executed by
D'Souza was attested by A1. Through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3,
the prosecution have proved that A1 has actively participated along
with A2 in negotiating with PW-1 the fraudulent sale of
D'Souzaproperty. When the fraudulent act had come to light, A1 has
repaid a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 03.09.2000 and Rs.45,000/- on
14.09.2001 and further agreed to sell her property and pay the balance
money. Since she has not paid the balance amount, the cheated defacto
complainant had initiated the criminal prosecution. The delay in
lodging the complaint, being fully satisfactorily explained by the
defacto complainant, the trial Court, on cumulative assessment of
evidence, held that A1 and A2 guilty for the offence under Sections
120(B), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Since pending trial, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
impersonator A3 (Ramesh Kumar) died, the case against A3 got
abated.
5. The trial Court, taking note of the ailment of A1, who was
suffering from brain tumour had imposed two years Rigorous
Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sections
467,468 and 471 IPC and one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the
offence under Section 420 of IPC and six months Rigorous
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 120(B) of IPC. The period
of sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the
revision petitioner herein preferred the appeal before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai in C.A.42 of 2010. The
lower appellate Court, on re-appreciating the evidence, found that
there is no material worth interfering the trial Court judgment in the
appeal. So, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.6111 of 2003.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that the Courts below have totally erred in appreciating
the evidence properly. The discrepancies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses were not properly appreciated by the Courts
below. The document at the Registrar Office indicates that D'Souza was
identified by PW-3, who is none other than the brother of PW-1. Till the
undertaking (Ex.P8) given by the accused to the defacto complainant,
no criminal prosecution was initiated. Relying upon the photocopy of
the sale deed(Ex.P7), the Courts below have proceeded against the
revision petitioner. When there is no document to link the accused to
the alleged crime, she ought to have been acquitted by the Courts
below. The signature of this revision petitioner was not sent for
handwriting expert for comparison and opinion to ascertain whether
the signature alleged to have been signed by this revision petitioner
was really signed by her.
8. Besides making the above submission, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the petitioner
believed A2 and she has bona fidely participated in the negotiation with
the defacto complainant. She never had any culpability that is why
immediately after she came to know about the fraud committed by A2 in
connivance with A3, she agreed to repay the money and also paid a
total sum of Rs.65,000/- and promised to pay the balance. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
defacto complainant has rushed to the police and caused disgrace to
her. He also submitted that due to brain tumor the revision petitioner
has lost her faculty and is living as vegetable. Therefore, considering
her present health condition as well as the bona fide attempt to repay
the money, her case has to be considered sympathetically,
9. The perusal of the judgments of the Courts below and
exhibits does not indicate any improper appreciation of evidence or
illegality as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner. The very same contention raised in this revision
petition has been canvassed before the trial Court as well as the lower
appellate Court. In fact, the lower appellate Court in judgment paras
21 to 23 given detailed reasoning for holding the revision petitioner
guilty. The defacto complainant, who has parted away a sum of
Rs.3,75,000/- for purchase of the property, had clearly implicated this
revision petitioner, who was a party to the entire transaction starting
from negotiation, identification of the property, execution of the sale
agreement and execution of the sale deed. She has received a portion of
the money and given receipts. When she was exposed of her culpability,
she agreed to repay the money and executed document and she has also
paid the portion of the money. Some of the money paid by A1 has been
deposited in the account of the revision petitioner and the same is
reflected in the bank statement of this revision petitioner, which are
marked as Exs.P38 and 39. For execution of the fraudulent sale deed,
the stamp papers were purchased jointly by A1 and A2. The stamp
vendor (PW-4) has identified both A1 and A2. This revision petitioner
has identified the copy of the sale agreement and the same is marked as
Ex.15. A1 and A2 are close friends and their association is spoken by
the prosecution witnesses to prove prior meeting of mind between the
accused. From the evidence, the prosecution has proved the revision
petitioner was instrumental for selling the property of D'souza
fraudulently through forgery and impersonation. Thus, the evidence of
the prosecution, on cumulative assessment, clearly indicates the
conspiracy between the accused to do an illegal act by illegal means.
This Court finds no error in the finding of the Courts below. Hence, the
Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge(FTC No.V), Chennai in C.A.No.42 of 2010 dated
29.01.2011 are confirmed. The period of sentence is ordered to be run
concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
shall be set off. Bail bond, if any executed by the accused shall be
cancelled. The respondent police is directed to secure the accused and
commit her to Prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence”.
5. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
12.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
To
1.The VII Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
Crl.R.C.No.23 of 2018
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
