Madras High Court
A.Vasu Balan vs State By on 15 June, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.1316 of 2019
A.Vasu Balan ... Petitioner/Appellant/1st Accused
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur.
Crime No.4 of 2005. ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.A.No.48 of
2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, by partly
allowed the appeal against the judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.
48 of 2010 dated 24.04.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur and allow the appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.A.No.48 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/first
accused is the brother of the fourth accused, who was a licensed Stamp
Vendor as per License No.9/1993. The second accused is also a licensed
Stamp Vendor as per License No.9/1997. The third accused is the friend
of the first accused. All the accused persons conspired together to sell
counterfeit stamp papers and made an agreement for doing an unlawful
act of selling counterfeit stamp papers in order to commission of the act
of selling counterfeit stamps. The petitioner used the license of his
brother, who is the fourth accused and cheated by pretending to be of
Srivijayan and purchased low value stamps from the treasury by using
the chitta belongs to A4 and sold high value denomination counterfeit
stamp papers to the value of Rs.58,000/- to various persons. The fourth
accused intentionally aided to the petitioner. The second accused sold
counterfeit stamps to the value of Rs.17,000/- to various persons through
the petitioner. On the complaint lodged by the District Registrar
(Administration), Thanjavur, the respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.4 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B),
419, 258, 259, 260 r/w 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, final
report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur,
and the same was taken on cognizance in C.C.No.48 of 2010. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
third accused was absent before the trial Court, the trial was conducted
only as against the petitioner and the accused No.2 and 4.
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined as P.W.1
to P.W.27 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.37. On the side of the petitioner, no
one was examined and no document was marked.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 258, 259, 260, 419 & 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
3 years Simple Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default,.
to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment for the each offence and
directed to serve concurrent sentence.
5.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal
in C.A.No.48 of 2018 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
The Appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner from other four charges
under Sections 258, 259, 260 and 420 of IPC and confirmed the
conviction and sentence under Section 419 of IPC. Hence, the present
Revision.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
except the petitioner all the accused persons were acquitted from all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
charges and the petitioner is also stand in the same footing and as such he
is entitled to same acquittal. When the Appellate Court found that the
other accused persons not guilty under the other offences, the petitioner
alone cannot be convicted for the offence only under Section 419 of IPC.
In fact, the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had purchased
the stamp papers under the license of fourth accused namely, his own
brother after 1995. Though, the prosecution has produced the chitta stand
in the name of the fourth accused reveals that the petitioner purchased
the stamp papers under the license of the fourth accused. No one was
examined in order to prove that the petitioner only purchased the stamp
papers under the license of the fourth accused. Therefore, the conviction
and sentence imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained and prayed
for acquittal.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted
that the prosecution categorically proved through Ex.P.36 (Chitta) that
the petitioner has purchased stamp papers under the license of fourth
accused and committed the offence under Section 419 of IPC. He also
sold out stamp papers to various purchasers, who were examined as P.W.
1 to 21 and 24. They categorically deposed that all the accused had
purchased stamp papers only from the first accused. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
Appellate Court rightly found him guilty for the offence under Section
419 of IPC and hence, the order of the Appellate Court, does not call for
any interference from this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this
petition.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
9.Totally there are 4 accused. It is seen that all the other
accused persons were acquitted by the Appellate Court from all the
charges except the petitioner. The petitioner is the brother of the fourth
accused. The fourth accused obtained license under License No.9/1993.
Before the Trial Court, he made submission under Section 313 Cr.P.C
that he had joined at Railway service on 12.10.1995 and thereafter, he
did not continue as a licensed Stamp Vendor and he had surrendered his
license before the District Registrar. However, the fourth accused failed
to produce any documentary evidence to show that he surrendered his
license. He also failed to substantiate the said statement by way of any
oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court mainly relied upon
Ex.P.37 chitta stands in the name of fourth accused. On perusal of
Ex.P.37 reveals that it was stand in the name of the fourth accused and
the petitioner had purchased the stamp papers under the license of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
fourth accused. However, the prosecution has failed to examine anybody
from the treasury to prove that the petitioner had purchased stamp papers
only under the license of the fourth accused. There is no proof to show
that the petitioner had purchased the stamp papers under the license of
the fourth accused. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
petitioner had sold stamp papers for Rs.1,000/- and 5,000/- without
getting permission of the fourth accused. Therefore, the appellate Court
ought not have convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section
419 of IPC. There is no material on record perused by the prosecution
that the petitioner purchased the stamp papers under the license of the
fourth accused from the treasury. Though P.W.1 to P.W.21 and P.W.24
deposed that they had purchased the stamp papers from the petitioner, it
does not mean that he only purchased the same under the license of the
fourth accused. Admittedly, the petitioner is none other than the brother
of the fourth accused. Therefore, they could have jointly conduct the
business and the petitioner sold the stamp papers under the license of the
fourth accused. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to bring the
charges under Section 419 of IPC to him by proper oral and documentary
evidence. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Appellate
Court for the offence under Section 419 of IPC cannot be sustained as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
against the petitioner.
10.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and
the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur,
dated 24.10.2018 in C.A.No.48 of 2018, partly allowing the Judgment
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur, in C.C.No.48
of 2010, dated 24.04.2018 is set aside. The petitioner/accused is
acquitted from the charge under Section 419 of IPC. Bail bond if any
executed by the petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled and fine amount
if paid is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/accused forthwith.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dss
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.46 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.1316 of 2019
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
