IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Crl.A.No.59 of 2018 Saminathan ... Appellant Vs.

1. Muthusamy S/o. Palanisamy Gounder

2. Prabakaran S/o. Muthusamy

3. Sankar S/o. Muthusamy ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the judgment and orders passed in C.A. No.53 of 2015 dated 19.07.2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, reversing the judgment and orders passed in C.C. No.338 of 2010 dated 15.04.2015 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Davidson for M/s. J. Franklin For Respondents : Mr. L. Mouli

JUDGMENT

Challenging the order of acquittal dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in C.A. No.53 of

2015, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.

2. The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint under Section

200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents (A1 to A3) and one Selvakumar (A4) in C.C. No.338/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 120(b) IPC.

3. The case of the complainant was that the property in Survey No.738/2 at Kandian Koil Village, Tiruppur Taluk, measuring 1.98 acres absolutely belonged to the accused 1 to 3 and that he and A1 to A3 entered into a sale agreement (Ex.P4) on 23.06.2006 for the sale of the above mentioned property for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- was paid towards advance. However, the accused 1 to 3 had executed a sale deed (Ex.P6) in favour of A4 and thus committed the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. It is also his contention that he filed a suit in O.S. No.238/2007 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur for specific performance of contract, in which an exparte decree was passed in his favour.

4. The learned trial court judge after analysing the evidence on record acquitted the 4th accused and convicted the accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and sentenced them as detailed hereunder.

5. Aggrieved over the same, the accused 1 to 3 filed an appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in C.A. No.53/2015. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, vide her judgment and orders dated 19.07.2017, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC and acquitted them, as agianst which, the present appeal is filed.

6. Heard Mr. Sanjay Davidson, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. Mouli, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. It is seen from the records that the sale agreement (Ex.P4) was entered into between the complainant and the accused 1 to 3 in respect of a land in Survey No.738/2 of Kandian Koil Village, Tiruppur Taluk for a sale consideration of Rs.2,35,000/-. The contention of the complainant is that an advance amount of Rs.1,35,000/- was paid by him to the accused and despite the same, the accused 1 to 3 sold the property in favour of A4. The complainant had also filed a suit in O.S. No.238/2007 before the Sub Court, Tiruppur, in which an exparte decree was passed. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had not filed any Execution Petition to get the decree executed. The complainant had not adduced any evidence to show that the accused 1 to 3 with a criminal intention had sold their property in favour of A4. This has been observed by the lower appellate judge also,wherein he has pointed out thus:

"5. POINT:

The complainant states that Accused N