IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
K. Saravana Kumar @ Samsudeen (died), S/o.Sri Karuppasamy and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.922 of 2014
Decided On : 21-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 465, 420, 468, 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 218, 219, 220, 221, 223 – Revision petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to setaside conviction and sentence passed in C.C. by learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Combatore, and having been confirmed by learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquit the petitioner herein so that justice may be done – Held, Therefore, I am not in agreement, the learned Amicus Curie that in this case, the offence u/s.420 would also automatically fall. Therefore, in respect of one count of 420 alone cheating P.W.1 for which the complaint has been obtained, charge sheet has been framed, I find that the conviction imposed by the trial Court is in order. Therefore except to convict the petitioner/accused for one count of 420 and confirming the punishment of three years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, I acquit the petitioner in respect of other charges and the corresponding conviction and punishment imposed by the trial court shall stand set aside and except the fine amount of Rs.1000/- the rest of the fine paid by the petitioner/accused shall stand refunded. Because the accused has not been tried by framing specific charges the direction to pay the compensation cannot also be sustained and accordingly set aside – Criminal Revision Case stands partly allowed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Revision petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to setaside the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.157 of 2002 on 10.10.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Combatore, and having been confirmed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore on 05.08.2014 in C.A.No.173 of 2013 and acquit the petitioner herein so that justice may be done.
(The case has been heard through video conferencing)
This Criminal Revision Case Crl.R.C.No.922 of 2014 was originally filed by the 1st accused viz. K.Saravana Kumar @ Samsudeen, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore dated 10.10.2013 in C.C.No.157 of 2002 whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence u/s.120(B) and imposed punishment of six (6) months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine one (1) month Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence u/s.420 (26 counts), three (3) years Rigorous Imprisonment in respect of each count and Rs.1,000/- as fine in respect of each count and in default of payment of fine, nine (9) months Rigorous Imprisonment, for the offence of 465, one (1) year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three (3) months Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence of 468 r/w 471 (26 counts) and imposing punishment of three (3) years Rigorous Imprisonment in respect of each count and fine of Rs.1,000/- in each count and in default to pay the fine amount nine (9) months Rigorous Imprisonment in respect to each count and the judgment of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, on 05.08.2014 in C.A.No.173 of 2013, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
2. On 30.01.2002 P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, stating that the 1st accused was the President of the District Builder's Association and during October 2001, promising to get a job for P.W.1's daughter viz. Sumathi, stating that they know the authorities in the Coimbatore Municipality and promising to get her a job of technical assistant, totally on two occasions obtained a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and thereafter on 28.01.2002 they received a job offer by registered post and upon verification with the Coimbatore Municipality, they found that the said order was bogus, therefore the complaint. P.W.31, the Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and he actually found that, apart from P.W.1, the accused have conned another 25 persons by promising them to get employment in different organizations during the period 1999 upto 2002 and have cheated a total sum of Rs.18,08,300/- and therefore after examining the witnesses and completing the investigation laid a charge sheet proposing both the accused guilty of the offences punishable u/s.120(B), 465, 420 (26 counts), 468 r/w 471 (26 counts).
3. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.157 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore and upon summoning the accused and furnishing copies u/s.207 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges and stood trial.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.31 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P47 and rested its case. Upon questioning of adverse evidence and circumstances on record u/s.313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the same as false. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Grade II) on behalf of the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and by judgment dated 10.10.2013 found that P.W.1 to P.W.29 all these persons being victims, who are conned by the accused by making false promises that they will get employment in various Government organizations and by providing them with fake / bogus / forged orders of appointment, which are all also marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P28, found that the prosecution has proved the offences beyond any reasonable doubt and convicted the accused
Insufficient evidence against certain accused led to their acquittal, while confirming conviction for others with reduced sentences.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, and 471 of IPC.
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused can be prosecuted for forgery even if they were not the direct signatories of the false document, as long as they were involved in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.