[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ambrose vs State Rep. By on 19 January, 2026
CRL RC No. 2202 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12-01-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 19-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2202 of 2023
Ambrose ..Petitioner
Vs
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
J-7, Velachery Police Station,
Velachery, Chennai.
Cr.No.963/2019 ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the judgement dated 13.09.2023
made in Crl.Appeal No.289 of 2023 on the file of the learned VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Chennai which confirmed the judgement dated
24.04.2023 made in C.C.No.267 of 2022 on the file learned XVIII
Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet and acquit the Petitioner by allowing this
revision and thus render justice.
For Petitioner: Mr. P.G.Thiyagu
for Mr.S.Amarnath
For Respondent: Mr.S.Balaji,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The revision challenges the judgment dated 13.09.2023 passed in
Crl.A.No.289 of 2023 by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chennai confirming the judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed in CC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
No.267 of 2022, by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 381 of the
IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a
sum of Rs.5,000/- as a fine, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner was working as
a driver of a cash filling vehicle of company by the name 'CMS Connecting
Commerce', which is an outsourcing company involved in the business of
filling up the cash in the ATMs in and around Chennai; that on 19.12.2019 at
about 2.30 a.m., PW1 and PW10 along with one Beer Mohameed Ansari
received Rs.87 Lakhs from their company for filling up the ATMs at Chennai
and took the cash in a silver-coloured Xylo car bearing Regn.No.TN07 CH
3733 driven by the petitioner; that they filled Kotak Mahindra Bank ATM
with Rs.3 Lakhs cash; that at Ramanujam IT Park, filled two ATMs with cash
of Rs.10 Lakhs and Rs.15 Lakhs; that thereafter, they filled an ATM at
Madhya Kailash with a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs; that at about 5.00 p.m., they went
to Vijaya Bank ATM at Vijaya Nagar to fill up Rs.5 Lakhs; that in front of
the ATM, the security guard officer Beer Mohammed Ansari stood guard;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
that it took 45 minutes to fill up the said cash; that when PW1 and PW10
came out of the ATM they found that the security guard as well as the
petitioner along with the vehicle, which contained the cash of Rs.52 Lakhs,
were missing; and that at about 8.00 p.m., they lodged a complaint before the
respondent herein which was registered in Cr.No.963 of 2019, for the offence
under Section 381 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution had examined 12 witnesses, viz., PW1 to PW12 and
marked 14 documents, viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The car and cash of
Rs.51,48,250/- were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The accused neither
examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.
4. On investigation, the respondent filed a final report against the
petitioner as well as one Mani @ Manimaran, who was arrayed as A2 and
who had allegedly instigated the petitioner to commit the aforesaid offences.
The trial court found that the case against A2 was not proved and acquitted
him of the charge under Section 381 of the IPC and found the petitioner
guilty and sentenced him as stated above. The appellate Court confirmed the
said conviction. Hence, this revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
prosecution suffers from several infirmities; that all the cash filling vehicles
had a GPS tracking feature; that the location of the vehicle was not informed
to the police; that no cash was seized from the petitioner; that the prosecution
had not established that the car was loaded with Rs.87 Lakhs as claimed by
the defacto complainant; that no ledgers or documents were produced to
prove the filling of the ATMs and the fact that the car contained cash of
Rs.52 Lakh; that the said Beer Mohammed Ansari was not examined by the
prosecution; that PW5 who spoke about the alleged recovery made from
certain third parties, turned hostile; that the evidence of PW6 who is an
employee of the said company viz., CMS does not inspire confidence; that
the alleged relatives of the petitioner viz., Dominic and Julia, from whose
houses the seizure of cash were made were neither examined as witnesses nor
made an accused; that there are several infirmities; and in such
circumstances, the judgments of the Courts below suffer from perversity and
are liable to be set aside.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) per contra submitted
that the trial Court and the appellate Court had considered the evidence on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
record in the proper perspective and that since the judgments do not suffer
from any infirmity, this Court in exercise of its power of revision cannot re-
appreciate the evidence; that there is no reason to disbelieve PW1 and PW10,
whose evidence inspires confidence and proves the commission of the
offence.
7. (i) As stated above, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses.
PW1 and PW10 are the vital witnesses for the prosecution who speak about
the taking of the cash in the vehicle and filling up of the cash in various ATM
centres as stated above. Both are employees of the said company, CMS. The
other witnesses, who corroborated the evidence of PW1 and PW10 viz., PW2
and PW3 are hearsay witnesses. PW4 was working as a Branch Manager in
CMS and would corroborate the evidence of other witnesses. He is also a
hearsay witness.
(ii) PW5 is the witness for the arrest and seizure, who turned hostile.
PW6 is an employee of CMS, who is said to have witnessed the arrest and
seizure of cash. PW7 and PW8 are the witnesses who had attested the
confession of the petitioner. PW9 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
[Ex.P12]. PW11 is the Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and
conducted the initial part of the investigation and handed over the
investigation to PW12, who had filed the final report.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, who was working
as a driver, along with one Beer Mohammed Ansari, who was the security
guard had travelled along with PW1 and PW10 in the vehicle. The said Beer
Mohammed Ansari, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, has not
been examined. He was also said to be absconding along with the petitioner.
In such circumstances, his non-examination in the Court, although he was
cited as a witness by the prosecution, has not been explained by the
prosecution. Admittedly, the vehicle driven by the petitioner had a GPS
tracking system. This is confirmed by PW2, an employee of the said
company, in his cross examination. However, there is no explanation by the
prosecution as to why the vehicle was not tracked by the GPS system. The
appellate Court had held that there is a possibility of failure in the GPS
tracking system. However, it is not the prosecution's case that the GPS
system had failed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
9. It is the case of the prosecution that the amount stolen by the
petitioner was recovered on his confession in the houses of two of his
relatives; that a sum of Rs.19,08,250/- was seized from one Dominic in his
house at Shastri Nagar and a sum of Rs.32,40,000/- was seized from one Julia
in her house at Vyasarpadi. PW5 examined to prove the seizure turned
hostile. PW6 is an employee of the said Company, CMS and he would state
that both the relatives of the petitioner were arrested by the Inspector of
Police. He would also admit that he did not know the exact amount said to
have been seized from the two houses. PW6, as stated above, is an interested
witness.
10. Be that as it may. The prosecution had not explained why the two
persons from whom the alleged seizure was made were neither examined as
witnesses nor made accused. If it is the case of the prosecution that they had
knowingly received the stolen property from the petitioner, they ought to
have been made accused. It is also not established by the prosecution that
these two persons were related to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
11. Above all, the ledger of the company, to prove that cash of Rs.87
Lakhs was taken in the vehicle in the morning of the day of occurrence and it
was deposited in various ATMs, was not seized by the investigating officer.
PW1, PW2 and PW10 who speak about the fact that the petitioner fled with
the vehicle, have admitted that whenever an amount is taken from the bank,
an entry would be made in the ledger and entries would also be made
whenever there is a deposit in any ATM. None of the documents were
marked by the prosecution.
12. As stated above, the said Beer Mohammed Ansari, who was also
present at the time of the occurrence and was originally cited as a witness by
the investigating officer, has not been examined. There are several lacunae
in the prosecution case, which have been elaborated above.
13. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, it would be highly
unsafe to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence of theft. Hence, the
Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. The judgments of the Courts below,
are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed
shall stand discharged.
19-01-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
To
1. The VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chennai
2. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
J-7, Velachery Police Station,
Velachery, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
Pre-delivery order in
19-01-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 02:01:34 pm )
