Muurgesan vs The State Rep By Inspector Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4371 Mad

                                                                        Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                           DATED : 18.04.2023

                                                  CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                           Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023


                 Muurgesan                                              ...   Petitioner

                                                       vs

                 1. The State Rep by Inspector of Police,
                    District Crime Branch,
                    Thiruvarur District.
                    Crime No.6 of 2006

                 2. Ramadoss                                            ...   Respondents

                 Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 of
                 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to judgment dated 29.11.2021 made
                 in C.A.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District and
                 Sessions Court, Thiruvarur confirming the judgment dated 06.11.2017
                 made in C.C.No.202 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
                 Court, Thiruvarur and set aside the same by allowing this criminal revision
                 petition.
                                    For petitioner  : Mr.C.Harish
                                    For Respondent-1: Mr.R.Vinothraja,
                                                      Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                    For Respondent-2 : M/s.Mythili Srinivas

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                 1/7
                                                                           Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023



                                                     ORDER

This criminal revision is filed challenging the judgment dated

29.11.2021 made in Crl.A.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District

and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur, confirming the judgment dated

06.11.2017 made in C.C.No.202 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto

complainant entered into an Agreement on 12.10.1998 with the accused

for purchasing a land in Survey No.291/3 at Thiyanapuram Village

consists of Kattukaruvai trees for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Subsequently, he came to know that the plot was not approved by the

Government and the Registration Officer refused to register the sale. The

petitioner had failed to get the approval from the Government and make

the complainant believe that the plots were approved plots and make them

to purchase the plots and thereby cheated. Hence, he gave a complaint to

the respondent-Police. In pursuance of the complaint, a case has been

registered and after investigation, the accused was prosecuted by the

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

Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

respondent-Police for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed 29

documents as Exs.P1 to P29. The trial Court, without considering the

evidence properly, acquitted the accused. This acquittal order was

challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.7 of 2018. The

appellate Court has also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and

acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this criminal

revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

contended that the Sub Registrar, who was examined as P.W10

(Thiruselvam), deposed about the non approval of the plots and that he

refused to register the land in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence,

the offence is made out and the accused has to be convicted and he

pleaded to allow the revision.

3.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Accused supported the

judgment of the trial Court and also the appellate Court. Further, he

contended that at the time of entering into agreement, i.e, in the year 1988,

a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.150 of 2000 has not come into force.

It came into effect on 22.09.2000. Therefore, there is no intention to cheat https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

the defacto complainant while entering into the agreement. Further, he

submitted that the plot was handed over to the defacto complainant, after

receiving the sale consideration. Further, at the time of entering into the

agreement, no objection certificate was not required for registration. In

the absence of any ingredients of cheat and there is no intention to cheat

the defacto complainant, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused,

which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. There is no ground for

interference in the findings of the Courts below and hence, he seeks to

dismiss the criminal revision.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)appearing for the 1st

respondent submitted that they supported the argument of the petitioner.

5. On perusal of the records and the impugned judgment, it reveals

that the 1st respondent Police prosecuted the 2nd respondent/Accused for

having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The

charge levelled against the accused is that by entering into an agreement

with the defacto complainant on 12.10.1988 offering to sell the plot for a

sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, but it was not approved layout. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

Hence, the Sub Registrar refused to register the sale. By selling

unapproved layout, the accused cheated the defacto complainant. Hence,

he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C and further, on

perusal of the evidence on record, it reveals that the government passed a

G.O.Ms.No.150 of 2000, which came into force on 22.09.2000, requiring

the approval of the Government for registering the plots in Panchayat

Unions, Village Panchayat and Municipalities. Admittedly, the sale

agreement executed by the accused is on 12.10.1988 before the

G.O.Ms.No.150 of 2000 came into force. At that time, the approval of the

Government was not required for selling the plots in Municipalities and

Panchayats. The said fact was admitted by the Sub Registrar,

P.W10(Thiruselvam) during his evidence before the Court below. Further,

it is not disputed that the plot agreed to sell was handed over to the defacto

complainant. The only problem is the Sub Registrar has refused to register

the plot for want of approval of Government. Therefore, it exposes the

fact that the accused had no intention to cheat the defacto complainant

while selling his property. In the absence of any ingredients for the

offence under Section 420 I.P.C, the prosecution failed to adduce the

sufficient evidence before the trial Court. Hence, the trial Court on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

appreciating all evidences produced by the prosecution found not guilty

and acquitted the accused in Crl.A.No.7 of 2018. The lower appellate

Court Judge has also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and

acquitted the petitioner. Therefore, I find no ground for interference in the

findings of the Courts below and there is no ground for reappreciating the

evidence in this criminal revision. Accordingly, this criminal revision case

is dismissed.

18.04.2023

srn

To

1. The learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur

3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvarur District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

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

Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

srn

Crl.R.C.No.680 of 2023

18.04.2023

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