Madras High Court
A.S.Anantharaman vs Sri Krishna Tiles And Potteries ... on 1 July, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
A.S.Anantharaman ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1299 of 2017
S.Vetrivel ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1370 of 2017
Vs.
Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited,
Represented by its Senior Administrative Officer
Mr.V.Subramaniyam,
No.A1, Kumara Vijayam,
99, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondent in both Crl.R.Cs
Common Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 to set aside the judgment and orders dated
30.08.2017 passed in C.A.Nos.17 & 20/2014 by the VI Additional
Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgement and orders dated
26.12.2013 passed in C.C.No.950/2003 by the XI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
In Crl.R.C.No.1299 of 2017 :
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.B.Natarajan
In Crl.R.C.No.1370 of 2017 :
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai
For Respondent : Mr.B.Natarajan
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.Nos.17 & 20/2014
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.950/2003, against
the five accused including the present revision petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 193, 196, 420 and 120(B)
IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranks in the
present revision cases would also be indicated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
3. The revision petitioners are the accused No.3 and 1,
respectively, in C.C.No.950/2003 and they have been convicted and
sentenced as detailed hereunder:
Conviction Sentence
Section 465 IPC Simple Imprisonment for two
years
Section 468 IPC Simple Imprisonment for three
years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for two
months.
Section 420 r/w.511 IPC Simple Imprisonment for three
years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for two
months.
Section 120 (B) IPC Simple Imprisonment for one
years and a fine of Rs.500/-
each, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one
month.
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The period of sentence already undergone by the accused
shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Since the second accused died during the pendency of C.C.No.950/2003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
the charges against him got abated. A discharge petition filed by the
fourth accused was allowed by the trial court and he was discharged from
all the offences.
4.The case of the respondent / complainant in a nutshell is as
follows :
i. The complainant is doing business in the name and style of Sri
Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) in which
Mr.A.R.Santhanakrishnan and his family members,
Mr.A.K.Muthuswamy and Mr.A.K.Shankar Prasad are
shareholders. The complainant has an immovable property
measuring 47 acres at No.79, Thirumangalam Village,
Koyambedu. Substantial extent of land was sold in favour of
several persons including Government Organizations and the
remaining extent of 34.04 acres belonged to the complainant.
ii. The company purchased the said property through different sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
deeds dated 11.12.1958, 02.06.1971, 05.06.1971, 15.06.1972 and
04.07.1972 (Ex.P2 to Ex.P8) for valuable consideration. According
to the complainant, the accused 2 and 3 had sold their respective
shares in favour of the complainant through the above sale deeds.
Therefore, they do not have any share in the property. However,
they entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.P9 and Ex.P10) with the
first accused in respect of the same property and also executed a
General Power of Attorney (Ex.P11 and Ex.P12) to and in favour
of the first accused in the presence of the fifth accused before the
Sub Registrar, Mylapore.
iii. The contention of the complainant was that all the accused had
knowledge that the accused 2 and 3 did not have any valid title in
respect of the property for which they had entered into an
agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
iv. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint before the XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai under Section 200
Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 193, 196, 420 and 120(B) IPC.
v. The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, after
furnishing copies of the records under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to all
the accused framed charges against them which include the present
revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B), 193 and 196 IPC. Since the accused
pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial.
vi. The complainant examined himself and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P22.
vii.The accused, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with
regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence
against them, denied of having committed any offence. The second
accused examined himself and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
viii.After full trial, the learned trial court judge, convicted the Accused
No.1, 3 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468,
420 r/w.511 and 120(B) IPC and sentenced them as detailed in
paragraph number 3, vide his judgment dated 26.12.2013
ix. Aggrieved over the same, the accused No.1, 3 and 5 filed an appeal
in C.A.Nos.17, 18 and 20/2014, respectively, before the VI
Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned VI Additional
Sessions Judge, Chennai after analysing the evidence on record,
confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court
Judge and dismissed the appeal, as against which the present
criminal revision cases are filed by the accused No. 1 and 3.
5. At the outset, it may be observed that this Court while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. cannot act
as a second appellate court unless it is convincingly shown that the
conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are perverse.
6. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1299/2017, Mr.C.S.S.Pillai, learned counsel for
the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1370/2017 and Mr.B.Natarajan,
learned counsel for the respondent.
7. In the instant case, both the courts have rendered a
concurrent finding and concluded that the present revision petitioners are
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 r/w.511
and 120(B) IPC.
8. It is seen from the records that Swaminathan (father of the
accused 2 and 3), A.R.Rajagopal (father of A.R.Santhanakrishnan one of
the directors of the company) and A.R.Krishnamoorthy (father of other
directors), A.K.Muthusamy and A.K.Sankar Prasad are brothers. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
have sold their family properties in favour of the complainant company
through the registered sale deeds dated 05.06.1971 and 15.06.1972
(Ex.P4 and Ex.P6). Subsequently, the accused 2 and 3 had entered into
agreements of sale on 26.12.2001 (Ex.P9 and Ex.P10) with the first
accused in respect of the properties covered under Ex.P4 and Ex.P6. On
18.09.2002, two General Power of Attorney (Ex.P11 and Ex.P12) were
executed in favour of the first accused by the accused 2 and 3. These facts
have not been disputed by the accused 2 and 3.
9. Thus, it is clear from the records that the accused 2 and 3 had
created an encumbrance in respect of the properties which they have
already sold and these documents had been registered in the presence of
the fifth accused. It is not the case of the accused 2 and 3 that they
entered into agreements of sale with the first accused without actually
knowing the earlier sale of the properties. Their contention seems to be
that they have every right to sell their family properties in favour of the
complainant company. However, no sale deeds were executed consequent
upon the sale agreements and power of attorney (Ex.P9 to Ex.P12).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
10. It is relevant to extract Sections 463, 465 and 468 IPC
which reads thus :
Section 463 IPC
"463. Forgery.—
Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record
or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to
cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or
with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery."
Section 465 IPC
"465. Punishment for forgery.—
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both."
Section 468 IPC
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de-
scription for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
11. Both the courts below had convicted the accused 1, 3 and 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 IPC on the ground
that the accused 2 and 3 have created an encumbrance over the properties
by way of executing General Power of Attorney and sale agreements in
favour of the accused even though they knew that those properties were
already sold in favour of the complainant. Mere reading of the above
sections would clearly go to show that the accused had not committed
forgery or cheated false documents to attract the provisions of 465 and
468 IPC. It is not the case of the complainant that their directors'
signatures were forged on Ex.P9 to Ex.P12. Therefore the conviction and
sentence passed by both the courts below for the offences punishable
under Sections 465 and 468 IPC are liable to be set aside.
12. It is admitted that no sale deeds were executed based on the
power of attorney and agreement of sale. Therefore, no loss is caused to
the complainant company. However, it is clear that Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 were
made with the intention to cheat the complainant company and in this
regard, all the accused have conspired with each other. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
conviction and sentence passed against the accused 1 and 3 for the
offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w.511 IPC and 120 (B) is
confirmed.
13. The learned counsels for the accused 1 and 3 submitted that
the first accused is in coma stage and medically unfit and the third
accused is aged more than 70 years and therefore, prayed for showing
leniency in passing sentence against them. He also contended that since
there is no financial loss for the respondent / complainant, fine amount
alone may be imposed on the revision petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 420 r/w.511 and 120(B) IPC. The medical
condition and the age of the revision petitioners were admitted by the
counsel for the respondent also.
14. Considering the same, the sentence passed by both the
courts below is modified as under :
Conviction Sentence
Section 420 r/w.511 IPC A fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default, to undergo simple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
Conviction Sentence
imprisonment for two months.
Section 120 (B) IPC A fine of Rs.500/- each, in
default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
With the above observations, these Criminal Revision Cases
stands disposed of.
01.07.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mtl
To
1.The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
2.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
Crl.R.C.Nos.1299 & 1370 of 2017
01.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
