Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
M.C.Kalaithangam – Petitioner
Versus
State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.942 of 2015
Decided On : 13-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.Gopinath, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.Suresh
For the Respondent:Mr. R.Ravichandran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
..
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving allegations of forgery. The judgment emphasizes the importance of conclusive evidence to support criminal convictions.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Revision - IPC 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 465 - The court discussed the allegations of forgery of sale agreements and vakalat, and the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The court highlighted the admissions made by the complainant and the lack of conclusive evidence of forgery, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for offenses under IPC Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 465 based on allegations of forging sale agreements and vakalat. The complainant alleged that the accused misused blank papers to create forged documents and obtain an ex-parte interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the admissions made by the complainant regarding the sale agreements and the lack of conclusive evidence of forgery in the vakalat. The court concluded that the accused was entitled to acquittal.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged forgery of sale agreements and vakalat by the accused, as well as the lack of conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering evidence in proper perspective and highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence to support the allegations of forgery. The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted. The court ordered the cancellation of any bail bond and the refund of any fine amount paid by the accused.
This criminal revision case has been filed against the order of conviction. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.7225 of 2004 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. He stood charged for an offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 465 of IPC. The trial Court, after trial, convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and convicted him under Section 467 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and convicted him under Section 468 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and convicted him under Section 471 r/w 465 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused has filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.181 of 2013 on the file of the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower appellate Court, by its judgment dated 26.08.2015, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred this present criminal revision case.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) P.W.1/the defacto complainant is the owner of the property in Door No.57, Ragavan Colony, Muthuvel Naicker Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-24, to an extent of 3940 sq.ft. The above said property has been leased out for various tenants and the defacto complainant has appointed the petitioner/accused as his power of attorney on 03.12.1993. The above power of attorney has been given only for the purpose of entering into the tenancy agreement, to receive the rents, and to take eviction proceedings against the tenants before the competent court. Apart from that the P.W.1 has also signed some blank papers and the same were given to the accused for taking steps to evict the tenants. By using the above said signed blank papers, the petitioner created a forged sale agreement(Ex.P23) in his favour, and he entered into a another sale agreement with one Sri Vari Estate Agencies (p) Ltd,(Ex.P24) and received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 02.03.1996. The above said sale agreement has been manipulated and created by the petitioner. Subsequently, P.W.1 cancelled the power of attorney. Even thereafter, the petitioner entered into an another sale agreement with one Subiksha Housing Enterprises, and received a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards sale consideration from them and the petitioner also entered into an another sale agreement with one Mahalakshmi Estate. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.8853 of 1997 against the P.W.1, and forged his signature, filed a vakalat through a advocate, and obtained an ex-parte interim order against him and with the help of the interim order, he prevented P.W.1 from entering into the property. In the above circumstances, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Central Crime Branch against the petitioner. Since no action has been taken, he has filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Court seeking a direction to register the complaint and based on the direction, a crime has been registered against the petitioner and after investigation, a final report has been filed.
3. Considering the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 36 documents were exhibited and no material objects were marked.
4. Out of the said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. Accord
