Venugopal vs State By
2023 Latest Caselaw 662 Mad

                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 12.01.2023

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                         Criminal Revision Case No.1076 of 2020
                                                           and
                                                Crl.M.P.No.7532 of 2020

                  Venugopal                                              ... Petitioner
                                                          Versus
                  State by
                  Inspector of Police,
                  Central Crime Branch,
                  Chennai.                                               ... Respondent

                             Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal
                  Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.445 of 2018 on
                  the file of the IV Additional District Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 26.09.2019
                  confirming the conviction order passed against the accused/petitioner in
                  C.C.No.5639 of 2016 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate for
                  Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and
                  CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai dated 24.07.2018 confirmed and acquit the
                  accused in the above case.

                                   For Petitioner     :     Mr.P.Govindarajan
                                                            for Mr.R.Rajasekaran
                                   For Respondent     :     Mr.R.Murthi
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                  Page 1 of 12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020


                                                      ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment dated

26.09.2019 passed in C.A.No.445 of 2018 by the learned IV Additional

District Sessions Judge, Chennai confirming the conviction order passed

against the accused/petitioner in C.C.No.5639 of 2016 on the file of the Special

Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to

Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai dated

24.07.2018.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sreenivas Rao/P.W.1 is the

owner of M/s.Vijaya Sales Corporation Company and Administrative Manager

of Sudha Industries, Sri.Gowri Sangar Engineering Works. The accused was

working under P.W.1 as a sales and collection agent, since the year 2002. He

is alleged to have supplied motor pumps of PW.1 to various purchasers

between the period 13.04.2005 and 12.07.2005 vide invoice bills, but failed to

deposit the money in the Bank account of PW.1. Further, the accused was

alleged to have delivered the motor pumps to some other third persons instead

of delivering to the persons mentioned in the invoice bills and thereby, he

swindled a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-. Thus, he has committed breach of trust and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

cheated P.W.1. Therefore, the accused is charged for the offences under

Sections 408 and 420 IPC.

3. On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent-

Police registered a case in Crime No.596 of 2005 against the petitioner for the

offences under Sections 406, 408 and 420 IPC. After investigation, the

respondent/Police filed a charge sheet before the learned III Metropolitan

Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the case was transferred to the file of

Special Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial CCN Cases Court,

Allikulam, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.16354 of 2006,

subsequently, transferred to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for

Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai ) and

CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai and re-numbered as C.C.No.5639 of 2016 and

charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 408

and 420 IPC.

4. In order to prove its case before the trial Court, on the side of the

prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and

10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and one material object was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

marked as M.O.1. On the side of the defence no oral evidence was adduced

and no documentary evidence was produced.

5. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side

and also considering the materials available on record found that the

petitioner/accused is guilty for the offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC

and he was convicted and sentenced as under :

Offence Sentence Section 408 IPC Simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

Section 420 IPC Simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

The aforesaid sentences were ordered to be run concurrently

6. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has

preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.455 of 2018 before the learned IV Additional

Sessions Judge, Chennai. The Appellate Court, as a final Court of fact finding

re-appreciated the entire materials and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no

evidence to show that the petitioner/accused has received money from various

purchasers of P.W.1 but not delivered the motor pumps. However, the

petitioner has delivered the motor pumps to the purchasers, which is evident

vide Exs.P2 to P11, P26 to P34 and P38. Apart from that, when the accused

was arrested by P.W.9, he made confession statement. Based on his confession,

P.W.9 recovered Exs.P26 to P34 and P38/Invoice delivery note of Lakshmi

Ganapathy Water Pumps Industries dated 12.07.2005, in which, the accused

has noted the details of the supply of motor pumps and cash received from

each and every purchaser of motor pumps from P.W.1. He further submitted

that no ingredients are made out for the offences under Sections 408 and 420

IPC. No witnesses spoke against him and there is no documentary proof to

show that the accused misappropriated the amount and thereby, he has cheated

the de-facto complainant. Except P.W.5, no witnesses have stated that the

payments were made in cash through the petitioner, and on the other hand they

used to issue cheques only in favour of the complainant Company. P.W.5

stated that he used to issue blank cheques to the complainant through the

accused, but there is no evidence to show that the accused encashed the

cheques for himself and spent for his own use. Further, there is no evidence to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

show that the accused received the amount in cash for any particular invoice

and transferred into his own account. The trial Court as well as the lower

Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence in a proper and perspective

manner and gave a wrong finding and convicted and sentenced the petitioner,

which warrants interference of this Court.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent would submit that the accused was working as a Sales and

Collection Agent of P.W.1's Company, since the year 2002. The main allegation

against the accused is that he supplied motor pumps of P.W.1 to various

purchasers, but failed to deposit the money in the account of P.W.1. Further, the

accused is alleged to have delivered the motor pumps to some other third

persons instead of delivering to the persons mentioned in the invoice bills and

thereby, swindled a sum of R.7,25,000/-. He further submitted that the

petitioner has not denied that he was not the employee of P.W.1. To prove the

allegations against the petitioner, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.6, who are the purchasers of motor pumps from P.W.1 through

the accused and also paid money for the same to the accused, for which they

relied upon the Bank statements/Exs.P13A and P14 that were given by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

P.W.7/Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Muthialpet Branch and

P.W.8/Manager of Indian Bank, George Town Branch. The above statements

clearly show that the amount received by the accused from the customers of

P.W.1 were misappropriated and deposited in his own account. Therefore, the

prosecution proved its case from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 and

documentary evidence that the accused has committed the charged offence.

Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner. There is no

merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and also

perused the materials available on record.

10. P.W.1/de-facto complainant in his evidence has stated about the

criminal breach of trust committed by the accused by selling motor pumps of

P.W.1 to various purchasers and misused the money received from them and

also sold some motor pumps to third persons instead of selling the same to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

the persons mentioned in the invoice. To prove the guilt on the accused P.W.1

has produced supportive documents.

11. P.W.2 to P.W.6, who are the purchasers, have clearly stated that

they purchased motor pumps from P.W.1 through the accused and paid money

by way of cash and cheques to the accused. Therefore, it is clear from the

evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.6 that they have purchased motor pumps from P.W.1

through the accused and also paid money for the same through the accused.

The purchase of motor pumps by PW.2 to P.W.6 are evident from the

documents Exs.P2 to P11. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the

evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.6.

12. P.W.7/Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Muthialpet Branch and

P.W.8/Manager of Indian Bank, George Town Branch, who clearly stated that

on receipt of the letters from P.W.9/Investigating Officer, they issued

statements of account of the accused, which were marked as Ex.P13A and

Ex.P14. From the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 and Exs.P13A and 14, it is

clear that neither the accused remitted the collected amount from P.W.2 to

PW.6 to the account of the de-facto complainant nor directly paid to the de-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

facto complainant. On the other hand the accused deposited the same into his

own account. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and

the documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the accused has

committed the charged offences and convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

The lower Appellate Court also re-appreciated the entire evidence and

confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

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

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.

14. On a combined reading of the evidence P.W.1 to P.W.6 and the

supportive documents, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved that the

petitioner has committed the charged offences and this Court as a revisional

Court does not find any reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and

also does not find any substantive reasons or any perversity in the appreciation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

of evidence, illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the both the Courts below

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

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the

judgment of both the Courts below are confirmed. The trial Court is directed

to take steps to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining

period of sentence, if any and the same shall be set-off under Section 428

Cr.P.C. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.01.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ms

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

To

1.The IV Additional District Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2.The Special Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.7532 of 2020

12.01.2023

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