Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar & Others - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2010
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C, Section 65 of Information Technology Act and Section 477-A read with Section 120-B of I.P.C - The court discussed the evidence related to the conspiracy to fabricate false driving licenses and cheat the government, the procedure for issuing driving licenses, the role of the accused in preparing fake driving licenses, and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy and the guilt of the accused, leading to the acquittal of all the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to fabricate false driving licenses and cheat the government by using genuine signatures and holograms. The trial court acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and failure to prove the conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the conspiracy to fabricate false driving licenses, leading to the acquittal of all the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove the conspiracy and guilt of the accused in fabricating false driving licenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the failure to establish the conspiracy and guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting all the accused was confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against acquittal the judgment dated 24.07.2009 in C.C.No.188 of 2005 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Judge, Dharmapuri and prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment of Lower Court and convict the respondents/Accused (A1 to A9) as charged.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused who were tried for offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C, Section 65 of Information Technology Act and Section 477-A read with Section 120-B of I.P.C as against the respondents.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, Ramesh Kumar (A1) was working in Computer Section of ELCOT Company at Dharmapuri. He was employed by ELCOT Company to design Driving License and laminate. A2 (Bagyalakshmi) is resident of Dharmapuri appointed by ELCOT Company to coordinate with RTO Office, Dharmapuri. Aravind Kumar (A3) & Senthil Kumar (A4) were expert in Computer Technology and assisting Ramesh Kumar (A1). Govindaraj (A5), Mahendran (A6) and Natarajan (A7) were brokers at RTO Office. Vijjiram (A8) was Assistant in RTO Office, Dharmapuri and Shanmugam (A9) is Superintendent, RTO, Dharmapuri.
3. All these accused between 19.08.2002 and 12.07.2004 conspired to fabricate false Driving Licence and cheat the Government. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, the genuine signatures of RTO were scanned and used for fabricating forged Driving Licences. For the said purpose, A2 (Bagyalakshmi) who was posted by ELCOT Company to work in RTO Office, collected details in the Computer maintained at RTO Office and passed it to Ramesh Kumar (A1), who with the help of A3 & A4 prepared fake Driving Licenses and same was sold through accused 5 to 7 for Rs.2000/- each. To add authenticity to the fake Driving Licences, genuine holograms entrusted by the Government to A8 & A9 were used. A8 (Vijjiram) & A9 (B.Shanmugam), who were in-charge of holograms entrusted by the Government for the RTO, Dharmapuri had been stealthily given it to A1 to A4, without maintaining the account for the holograms. The fake driving license manufactured in the names of (1).Malaalappan S/o.Parasol Alex, (2).Sankar S/o.Kaliappan, (3).Lakshmanan S/o.Muthusamy, (4).Magesh S/o.Lakshmanan (5).Thirunavukkarasu S/o.Govindan, (6).Pooncholai S/o.Periyasamy, (7).Kumar S/o.Pachiappan, (8).Balaji S/o.Shanmugam, (9).Venkatesan S/o.Ramanadhan (10).Silambarasan S/o. Mani, (11).Mohammed Nasir S/o.Salim (12).Shanmugam S/o.Raman (13).Murugan S/o.Kaliappan, (14).Baskaran S/o.Adhimoolam (15).Kabali S/o.Rajagopal, (16).Sekar S/o.Magalingam, (17).Durai S/o.Chinnasamy, (18).Paramasivam S/o.Kaliappan, (19).Muniappan S/o.Ramalingam, (20).Jayaraman S/o.Perumal, (21).Loganayagam S/o.Kandasamy (22).Sivaraj S/o.Chinnasamy (23).Murugasan S/o.Govindhan, (24). Mariappan S/o.Ramalingam, were sold for Rs.2000/- each, thereby created loss to the exchequer. The driving license for the above persons were given without proper driving test and procedures.
4. Based on the final report, charge for offence under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C, Section 65 of Information Technology Act and Section 477-A r/w 120-B of I.P.C was framed.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined 49 witnesses, marked 30 exhibits and 26 material objects.
6. P.W.1 was RTO, Dharmapuri during the year 2004. He know A1, A2, A8 & A9. He has explained the procedure for issuing driving licence under the new system of affixing holograms in the laminated licence. On 12.07.2004, at about 11.00 a.m., he received a phone calls presumably from a reporter Junior Vikatan alleging that, without test and without appearing in person, driving license has been given to one Murugesan S/o.Govindhan, Periyakurumpatti Village. Immediately, he instructed Motor Vehicle Inspector, Saminathan to verify the authenticity of the information. The said Murugesan was secured and his Driving Licence No.1
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the conspiracy and guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the necessity to establish the conspiracy theory in criminal cases.
Convictions of conspiracy and corruption under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act cannot stand without sufficient corroborative evidence alongside accomplice testimonies.
The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed fraud or were involved in a criminal conspiracy, leading to their acquittal.
The court emphasized the importance of positive evidence, absence of unexplained delays in lodging complaints, and consistency in witness testimonies in reaching a decision.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of evidence and established contradictions led to the acquittal.
Prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold charges of forgery and conspiracy, relying instead on mere suspicion, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
