In criminal law, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.12.2022, passed by the learned District Principal Sessions Judge, Chengelpet, in C.A.No.82 of 2019, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners dated 27.05.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengelpet, in C.C.No.10 of 2018, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 of IPC and Section 4, 14, 76 of the Chit Fund Act.

2. There are totally three accused and the petitioners are arrayed as A2 & A3. The case of the prosecution was that all the accused viz., husband, wife and son, had run unregistered chit in their locality thereby inducing the general public to subscribe to their chit. Accordingly, the victims had subscribed by monthly instalments. After maturity, the accused failed to repay the amount as assured by them and cheated the victims. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 & 420 of IPC and Section 4, 14 & 76 of the Chit Fund Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.101 of 2018 by the trial Court.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 & 420 of IPC and Sections 4, 14 & 76 of the Chit Act and sentenced them as follows :-

The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. While pending appeal, the first accused died and all the charges were abated against him. Hence the accused 2 & 3 have filed the present revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution failed to prove any charges as alleged by the victims. According to the prosecution, there were four victims and they were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4. All the four were categorically deposed that the first accused received the amount and issued pronote. It was absolutely loan transactions between A1 and P.W.1 to P.W.4. Nowhere they alleged that they paid amount to the petitioners herein. The first accused is the husband and the second and third accused viz., the petitioners herein are the wife and son. In fact, the third petitioner was studying in college during the alleged occurrence. The prosecution also failed to prove that they conducted chit. Even according to P.W.1 to P.W.4, they had paid amount for which, the first accused executed pronote. Therefore, it was only loan transaction. The prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to bring the charges to home. Unfortunately, without considering the above facts and circumstances, the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal which was filed by the petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the re