The court affirmed that for a conviction under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate elements of fraudulence and dishonest inducement, supported by credible witness testimony.

ORDER :

1. The present Criminal Revision Cases arising against the judgment dated 29.08.2025 made in CA.No.23, 20, 19, 18, 14, 15, 24, 25, 21, 26, 16, 17, 29, 28, 22 & 27 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam confirming the Judgment dated 05.04.2025 made in C.C. No. 51, 48, 47, 46, 42, 43, 52, 53, 49, 54, 44, 45, 57, 56, 50 & 55 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tindivanam for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Since all the Criminal Revision Cases arising against crime No.17 of 2010 and in respect of the same petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same by way of a common order.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Cases are that, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.17 of 2010 alleging that this petitioner along with one Mohanasundaram have committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC, by receiving money from different persons over a period from January 2009 to May 2009. According to the prosecution, this petitioner is a daily wager and got acquaintance with Mohanasundaram (A2), who was a Branch Manager of State Bank of India. It is the further case of the prosecution that this petitioner and Mohanasundaram (A2), in order to lead a luxurious life, have falsely induced one Mr.Vadivelan (PW1) and Mr.Dhanavel (PW7) with dishonest and fraudulent intention and committed a wrongful loss and thereby, they have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. It is the prosecution case that the petitioner and the other accused have fraudulently and dishonestly represented to the witnesses that they have got Rs.30 crores in their account and that to release the above amount, they need to pay taxes of Rs.30 lakhs, and on that pretext demanded the sum with the witnesses. Due to the intentional inducement, the witnesses parted the amount, whereas later on they came to know that no amount was in the petitioner’s account and that the very statement made by them is a false one. Thereafter, they gave a police complaint against the petitioner. Since PW1 and PW7 had paid the amount through various persons at different time, the Investigating Officer has filed 16 final reports in compliance with Section 219 Cr.P.C., and the cases were also taken on file separately in C.C.No.42 to 57 of 2011.

4. Before the Trial Court to prove the charges, 13 witnesses were examined, 23 documents and 3 Material Objects were marked.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tindivanam found both the accused guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 05.04.2025.

6. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred the Criminal Appeals before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam and all the appeals were dismissed on 29.08.2025. Though the Trial Court has not passed any specific order as to how the sentence of imprisonment to be undergone, in all the 16 cases, the learned Appellate Judge, by invoking Section 467(1) of BNSS ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved with the order of Criminal Appeals, the present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lower Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence more specifically, the evidence of key witnesses [PW1 and PW7]. It is also his submission that the very conduct of the witnesses parting with huge sum of Rs.30 lakhs without any proof for payment, would clearly demonstrate that the case of the prosecution is false and without any evidence. The learned counsel would further submit t