The lack of proof of the prosecution's case and the unexplained inordinate delay in filing the restoration petition influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to condone the delay of 549 days in filing a petition to restore Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court dismissed on 14.08.2018 for non-prosecution.

Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.06.2012 made in C.C.No.130 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri and prays to set aside the same.)

1. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 549 days in filing the petition to restore Crl.R.C.No:19/2013 was dismissed on 14/08/2018.

2. On the complaint given by one Palanivel (the petitioner herein) the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri, registered a case in Crime No.18/2003 under Section 420 IPC against Govindaraj (1st respondent), Rajasekaran (2nd respondent) and Shanthi (3rd Respondent). In the complaint, it is stated that the first respondent promised to get the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer in Tamil Nadu Government and believing his words to get the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer for his wife, the first respondent initially received Rs.1,50,000/- and during the year 2002, he gave another Rs.1,50,000/-. The first respondent could not arrange for job as he promised. Therefore, the petitioner demanded his money back. The first respondent repaid Rs.90,000/- only and failed to return the balance amount. After his complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Govindaraj (the first respondent) executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant in respect of 92 cents land worth about Rs.80,000/-.

3. Similar allegations from Tr.Mani (PW-4) that the first respondent received a total sum of Rs.78,600/- in three instalments promising to get Meter Reader Job in Electricity Department and from Palanisamy (PW-8) alleging the accused persons received Rs.2 lakhs from him (PW-8) promising job in Forest Department and cheated him, this came to light in the course of investigation. Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer-Ramasamy (PW-11) stating, respondents 1 to 3 herein had received money from PW-1, PW-4 and PW-8 promising job but, failed in their promise. For the money received, they have given receipts. The cheque for Rs.1,00,000- issued to PW-8 returned without fund. The third respondent given receipt to PW-8 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- from PW-8. The second respondent gave receipt acknowledging the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-from PW-1. In these receipts, the first respondent had signed as witness.

4. Before the trial Court to prove the charge framed against the accused 1 to 3 under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and marked 15 exhibits. The trial Court on considering the evidence held that the contradiction in the evidence regarding the nature of transaction creates doubt about the prosecution case. The receipts Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-6, and Ex.P-10 only indicate, the money was received as loan and not for securing job. These were obtained from the accused, after the complaint given to the police. Further, in favour of the defacto complainant, 92 cents of land has been transferred by the accused and for the said transfer of property, PW-1 has admitted that he has not paid any separate consideration to the vendor. Therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charge under Section 420 IPC.

5. The defacto complainant has filed revision petition before the High Court, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal and the same was numbered in Crl.R.C.No.19/2013. Neither the State nor the other two alleged victims of crime had filed any appeal or revision against the order passed by the trial Court.

6. When the revision petition was listed for final hearing on 10/08/2018, there was no representation for the petitioner. This Court adjourned the case recording, “No representation for the petitioner. Post the matter on 14/08/