Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; general assumptions are insufficient for conviction.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the the Judgment dated 15.09.2022 in Crl.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai by confirming the Judgment and Conviction imposed in C.C.No.7601 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai dated 04.09.2018.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the Manager of ICICI Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai received a Demand Draft (herein after referred to as D.D.) on 01.07.2025 at about 4 p.m., from both the Accused which was drawn on Boomi Buthra Commerce Bank at Kolalambure, Malaysia. The Complainant suspected the genuineness of the said D.D and conducted ultra-violet test on the said D.D and found that it was a forged one. In order to compare the said D.D with another original D.D which was also drawn from Boomi Buthra Commerce Bank at Kolalambure, Malaysia and it was taken and confirmed that it was presented by both the Accused. Therefore, the complainant intimated these facts through e-mail to the Boomi Buthra Commerce Bank at Kolalambure, Malaysia and confirmed that the D.D presented for collection was forged. Hence, he lodged a Complaint. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.7601 of 2006.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On the side of the defence, they examined DW1 and marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the accused 1 & 2 guilty for the offence under Sections 471 , 420 r/w. 511 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 471 of and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 r/w. Section 511 of .

Aggrieved by the same, both the Accused had preferred criminal appeal before the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2013 and the same was dismissed and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1 submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove any of the charges in respect of the second Accused, who is the Managing Director of Sri Vigneshwara Trust, which is a charitable trust taking care of elders and other purposes. The first accused has nothing to do with the second Accused and he is no way connected with the said trust. Even according to the prosecution, the first Accused had accompanied with the second Accused to present the D.D. Further, even assuming that the first petitioner is also accompanied with the second Accused to the Bank, they never presented the D.D for encashment. They have submitted the D.D for verification as well as authentication of the said D.D and whether it was issued by Boomi Buthra Commerce Bank at Kolalambure, Malaysia or not. If it was issued by the said Bank, it may be presented for encashment to their accounts. Therefore, they never presented for collection or encashment of the D.D. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove that the D.D presented by the Bank by way of any challan. If the D.D to be presented for encashment, it has to be presented with a challan. After presentation of D.D, the person who presented the D.D will be issued with a c