The central legal point established in the judgment is the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused in inducing the complainants to deliver money for securing jobs, leading to the exploitation of the public by taking advantage of the unemployment problem.

1. The Criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.05.2008, in C.A.No.398 of 2006, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. Act Cases, Coimbatore, whereby the appellant/1st accused found guilty for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo two years rigourous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, which was remitted by the accused, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.09.2006, in C.C.No.327 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore.

2. The skeleton of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) The appellant and his son were doing cable network broadcasting T.V. Programmes to the houses within the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and one Radhakrishnan, who was working as a Professor in the said University.

(ii) During the trial, the trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.59 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1-Dharmalingam, in his evidence, stated that Gobi Arumugham, V.R.Subramaniam, P.C.Chandran and others, totally 63 persons gave Rs.16,00,000/- to the appellant and other accused. On 21.05.1995, when they enquired the appellant and other accused about the interview to which the accused denied the same and threatened them. When they demanded for repayment of money on 30.05.1995, the appellant gave a cheque bearing No.036412 for Rs.6,73,000/- in the name of P.W.1 and then promised to repay the remaining amount and on that day itself, he issued a cheque for Rs.5,53,000/- in the name of P.W.9-Arumugham. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned as 'stop payment'. Sothe accused get back all the cheques issued to P.W.1 and P.W.9 and then he issued four cheques to P.W.1, which are as follows:

Sl.No. Date Cheque No. Amount

1 6/6/95 3186071 Rs.2,00,000/-

2 8/6/95 3186072 Rs.2,00,000/-

3 10/6/95 3186073 Rs.2,00,000/-

4 12/6/95 3186074 Rs.73,000/-

Total: Rs.6,73,000/-

The petitioner/first accused issued another three cheques for Rs.5,53,000/- in favour of P.W.9. When those cheques were presented for encashment in the Bank, again they were returned as 'No funds'. So, P.W.1 gave a complaint Ex.P1 before P.W.59- Assistant Commissioner, C.R.B. Coimbatore and the case was registered in Crime No.1/1996. The F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P2. (iii)P.W.59, who took up the matter for investigation, has examined the witnesses and recorded the statements of the persons, who gave the money to the accused for getting job. After completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 120b, 420 read with 109 I.P.C.

3. The trial Court framed necessary charges against the accused. During the pendency of the trial, the said Radhakrishnan/A3, who was working as a Professor in the Agricultural University was died. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.59 and Exs.P1 and P2, acquitted the second accused and convicted the first accused for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo two years rigourous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- was remitted by the first accused and aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, he was preferred an appeal in C.A.No.398 of 2006, where the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the same, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the first accused.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first accused submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, a charge sheet has been filed against three persons (i.e.) the petitioner/A1 herein, his son/A2 and one Radhakrishnan/A3, who was working as a Professor in Agricultural University, Coimbatore, but he was died,