Mangaleswaran @ Thavamani vs The State Rep
2022 Latest Caselaw 15357 Mad

                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 15.09.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                  Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

                     Mangaleswaran @ Thavamani                                       ...Petitioner
                                                             ..vs..
                     The State Rep.
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Tiruppur North Police Station,
                     Tiruppur District,
                     Crime No.236 of 2006.                                        ... Respondent

                                  Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C
                     to call for the records on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court,
                     Tiruppur, Tiruppur District in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016 by judgment dated
                     07.12.2021 and confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the
                     learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District in
                     C.C.No.260 of 2006 dated 13.10.2016 and set aside the judgment dated
                     07.12.2021.

                                       For Petitioner    :        Mr.E.Kannadasan
                                       For Respondent    :        Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                                  Additional Public Prosecutor



                     Page No.1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

                                                         ORDER

This revision has been preferred challenging the judgment dated

07.12.2021 made in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016 by the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 while

working in the Indian Overseas Bank at Illayangudi Branch had stolen

two Demand Drafts with connivance with the second accused and they

created forged documents for residential address and identification,

including ration card and encashed the same, which caused loss to the

Bank. Therefore, P.W.1, who is officer of the said Bank gave a

complaint to the respondent/Police against the petitioner and another.

3. The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.236 of

2006 against the petitioner and another for the offences under Sections

467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 and 420 r/w 511 IPC. After investigation, the

respondent/Police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.260

of 2006. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the above offences

Page No.2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months for each of the offences and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of

the offences, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an

appeal in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016 before the Principal Sessions Judge,

Tiruppur. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the order of the trial

Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

has preferred the present revision.

4. In order to substantiate the same, on the side of the prosecution

totally 14 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 26

documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and 8 material objects were

marked as M.O.1 to M.O.8.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and some

of the prosecution side witnesses were turned hostile and they have not

corroborated the evidence of de facto complainant. The trial Court

Page No.3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

without considering the materials convicted and sentenced the petitioner

only based on the presumption. The Appellate Court also failed to

appreciate the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, which warrants

interference of this Court.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Indian

Overseas Bank at Illayangudi Branch. While he was in service he had

stolen two Demand Drafts and forged documents with connivance of the

second accused and encashed amount. He further submitted that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence,

there is no merit in the revision and the same has to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

8.Admittedly, the allegations against the petitioner is that on

09.01.2006, the petitioner had stolen two Demand Drafts bearing

Nos.51054500 and 510559498 and subsequently, he created forged

Page No.4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

documents with connivance of the second accused and encashed the

same, which caused loss to the Bank. In order to substantiate the same,

the officer who gave the complaint was examined as P.W.1 and other

Bank officials were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.9.

9. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9, this Court finds

that the prosecution has proved its case with cogent evidence and the trial

Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and

sentenced the petitioner and the same was rightly re-appreciated and

confirmed by the Appellate Court.

10.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the

Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire

evidence and also given findings and while exercising the revisional

jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court

and re-appreciate the evidence. However, this Court has to see whether

there is any perversity or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.

11.On a combined reading of the entire materials and judgments of

Page No.5/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

both the Courts below, this Court does not find any perversity in the

judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision

Case is dismissed.

12.When the matter came up for hearing on 07.09.2022, it seen

that while dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court, instead of

directing the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur

to execute the order of the trial Court, directed the trial Court to issue

Non-Bailable Warrant and secure the accused to commit him to prison to

undergo remaining period of sentence. But, till the date of hearing, the

revision petitioner was not secured. Hence, this Court sought some

information from the prosecution as to why the revision petitioner was

not secured, for which, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent/Police, on instructions, submitted that the

Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur has given a

requisition letter dated 25.08.2022 before the learned Magistrate to issue

Non-Bailable Warrant and hence, this Court called for explanation from

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and the learned Principal

Page No.6/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

13. On a perusal of the reports of the both the Courts below, it is

seen that the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur

never gave any requisition letter either on 25.08.2022 or any other date

requesting the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. Further, the report

would show that on suo motu, in order to comply the judgment of the

lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.118 of 2016, the learned Magistrate

issued warrant to the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station,

Tiruppur on 13.04.2022 itself. However, they have not secured the

accused despite the appeal was dismissed.

14.The trial Court issued warrant to secure the accused, but, the

Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur have not

secured the accused, but they have made a false representation that on

25.08.2022, they made a request before the trial Court for issuance of

warrant. Therefore, it would clearly show that the respondent/Police

Page No.7/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

misguided the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Even, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor without verifying the same acted simply as

mouth piece of the respondent/Police, which causes much inconvenience

to dispensation of the justice. It is not for the first time that the Police

officials are lying before this Court and in most of the cases they are not

properly giving instructions to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

If the Court seeks any information, they give false information and which

causes inconvenience to dispensation of the justice.

15.Therefore, the Inspector General of Police, Tiruppur District

North Zone, Tiruppur is directed to take action against the Inspector of

Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur, who has given wrong

information to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and file an action

taken report within a month i.e. on or before 18.10.2022.

16. Post the matter on 18.10.2022 '' for reporting compliance''

15.09.2022

Page No.8/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

3.The Inspector General of Police, Tiruppur District North Zone, Tiruppur.

4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.9/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2022

15.09.2022

Page No.10/10

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