Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
A.R. Manjula - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 350 of 2012
Decided on : 16-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:B.K. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: T. Shunmuga Rajeswaran, GA.
Active participation in a fraudulent transaction, including negotiation, identification of the property, and execution of fraudulent documents, can lead to conviction under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Forgery - Property Fraud - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the fraudulent sale of a property, including the conspiracy, negotiation, execution of sale agreement and sale deed, and the involvement of the accused in the illegal act. The court found no error in the findings of the lower courts and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, along with others, conspired to fraudulently sell a property by misrepresenting its ownership and fabricating documents. The defacto complainant discovered the fraud and lodged a complaint, leading to the trial and subsequent appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC based on the evidence of conspiracy, negotiation, and execution of fraudulent documents. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appreciation of evidence, discrepancies in witness testimony, and the culpability of the accused in the fraudulent sale of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence of the accused's active participation in the fraudulent transaction, including negotiation, identification of the property, and execution of fraudulent documents. The court found no error in the findings of the lower courts and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court were confirmed. The accused was directed to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC.V), Chennai and set aside the judgment passed by her made in C.A.No.42 of 2010 dated 29.01.2011 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, made in C.C.No.6111 of 2003, dated 26.03.2010 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 467,468,471 and sentencing her to undergo two years R.I.each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and also convicting her for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentencing her to undergo one year RI and also convicting her for the offence under Section 120B IPC and sentencing her to undergo six months RI and sentences to run concurrently.)
1. The revision petitioner herein is the accused before the trial Court in C.C.No.6111 of 2003. She along with other two others were tried for the offence under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 471 and 468 of IPC.
2. The specific case of the prosecution is that this revision petitioner A.R.Manjula along with one G.Karunamoorthy conspired to sell a house site bearing plot No.204/A, Bhuvaneswari Nagar, Velachery, Chennai which stood in the name of D'Souza of Perambur. In pursuant to the conspiracy, A1 represented the defacto complainant Kalyani Balakrishnan that the house site is available for sale and produced photocopy of the title deed to her during the month of December 1999. In furtherance of the false statement to the defacto complainant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 16.02.2000 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in 06.03.2000 received by A1 and A2. Also agreement in favour of the defacto complainant executed as if the said agreement is executed by D'Souza the title holder of the property. By the time, D'Souza has already died. Knowing fully well D'Souza is dead but to cheat and fraudulently misappropriate, the document was fabricated and the complainant was made to believe that the deed is a genuine one. Further, in pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 04.04.2000, A2[Karunamoorthy] arranged one Rameshkumar[A3] to impersonate as D'Souza. After collecting the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-, the sale deed was registered in favour of the complainant. When the defacto complainant, based on the sale deed, intended to sell the property, she went to the site where she saw some construction work was going on. When she enquired with the neighbouring land owners, she came to know that the said D'Souza expired on 22.08.1992 itself and his legal heirs have alienated the property to one Vivian. After she came to know about the fraudulent act of A1 and A2 in connivance with A3 and fraudulently received Rs.3,75,000/- by impersonation executed the sale deed, she lodged a complaint. On completion of investigation on her complaint, final report has been filed.
3. To prove the guilt, the prosecution has examined 31 witnesses 39 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defence, 5 exhibits were marked.
4. The trial Court, considering the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, has held that the property which originally belonged to D'Souza, after demise of D'Souza on 22.08.1992 was sold by his legal heirs to Vaithi Venkatesan (PW-17) through Muralidaran (PW-13) and Geetha (PW-16), whereas A1 and A2 had made the defacto complainant to believe that the said property is available for sale and entered into the sale agreement (Ex.P6) dated 20.03.2000 in the name of D'souza. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been received by A1 and she has given receipts (Exs.P3 and P5) to PW-1. Later, the sale deed was executed by A2. The sale deed (Ex.P7) dated 04.04.2000 in favour of the defacto complainant as if executed by D'Souza was attested by A1. Through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, the prosecution have proved that A1 has actively participated along with A2 in negotiating with PW-1 the fraudulent sale of D'Souza property. Whe
