Madras High Court
The State Represented By vs Saravanan on 15 April, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 31.10.2018
Pronounced on : 15.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.Nos.261 & 265 of 2013
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CB CID, Coimbatore. ... Appellant in both the appeals
vs.
Saravanan ... Respondent in Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
Ramasamy ... Respondent in Crl.A.No.265 of 2013
Prayer in both the Appeals: These Criminal Appeals filed under
Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the
respondents/accused 2 & 3 passed in C.A.Nos.12 & 13 of 2012
respectively (common judgment) dated 04.10.2012 by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, reversing the judgment of
conviction made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore,
in C.C.No.55 of 2010 dated 19.07.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
in both the appeals
For respondents : Notice served – No Appearance
in both the appeals
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
COMMON JUDGMENT
These criminal appeals have been filed by the State against a common judgment of acquittal dated dated 04.10.2012 made in C.A.Nos.12 & 13 of 2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2 The respondent in Crl.A.No.261/2013 is 2nd accused and the respondent in Crl.A.No.265/2013 is 1st accused in C.C.No. 55 of 2010. A1 is father and A2 is son. A3, who is another son of A1 had also charged and tried separately and since he admitted the charges levelled against him, he was imposed imprisonment. The respondents in both the criminal appeals along with A3 were running a driving school called “Kavitha Driving School” in Tiruppur. They conspired together for fabricating false registration certificates. Accordingly, they prepared a fabricated R.C. Book for a Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.TN37N 6966, which is owned by P.W.2 and parked before the 'Suguna Thirumana Mandapam' and stolen by the appellants/accused and changed the original engine and chassis number of the said car and changed the registration number as TN59D 3616. Thereafter, they sold the said car to one Mathivanan for a sum of Rs.1,17,500/- making him believe that the registration certificate is a genuine one. Further, On 05.01.2004, the respondent/A2 was having one fabricated R.C. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 with a number TN39K 3330 in Tiruppur Nanisa driving school. The vehicle in question was purchased by one after another and lastly it was purchased by one Fiaz Ahamed/P.W1. After the purchase, he and his family members travelled in the said Car and near Sangagiri, it met with an accident and on the spot his aunt died and others got injured. Thereafter, P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.14 had purchased the said Car and when they brought the vehicle to the Workshop for maintenance, situated in V.K.K.Menon Road, they saw the vehicle which has the same Registration Number and immediately they returned the same to P.W.1, from whom they have purchased the Car. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint narrating the incidents.
3 Based on a complaint given by Fiaz Ahamed, a case was registered in Crime No.1671 of 2002, which was later transferred to CB CID by order of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. The Inspector of Police, CB CID, Coimbatore City, after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet against three accused, before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore, under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 420 IPC read with 120 (b) IPC. A3 had admitted the charges in C.C.No.1440 of 2004 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 36 weeks by an order dated 27.04.2005. Later, the case against the other two accused namely A1 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and A2, who are the respondents herein, was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.55 of 2010. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of all the charges levelled against them and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 465 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the other offences.
4 As against which, A1 & A2 filled separate appeals before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, which were taken on file in C.A.Nos.12 & 13 of 2012 respectively. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, by a common judgment dated 04.10.2012, allowed both the appeals and acquitted the accused 1 & 2. 5 Aggrieved against the above judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.2012, the Inspector of Police, CB CID, Coimbatore, has preferred the present criminal appeals before this court.
6 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellant/State would submit that P.W.2 had lodged a complaint stating that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-37-N-6966, which was http://www.judis.nic.in 5 parked in front of the Suguna Thirumana Mandapan was missing. After receipt of the complaint, P.W.3 had registered a case in Cr.No.1148 of 1996, and later it was closed 'as undetectable'. P.W.4 and P.W5, who are Insurance Officials, had clearly stated that, for the Car by P.W.2, they have settled an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. When P.W.1 lodged a complaint, it was noticed that the said Car was connected with the Cr.No.1148/1996, which was closed 'as undetectable'. Hence the link has been clearly proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence. Further one of the accused, namely A3, had admitted the charges levelled against him and imprisonment was imposed. All the three accused only conspired together and fabricated the RC Book in order to cheat the buyers for unlawful monetary gain. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused, whereas, the lower appellate Court, erroneously disbelieved the evidence of prosecution and acquitted the respondents/accused.
7 Even though notice served on the respondents, they did not choose to appear before this Court either in person or through Advocate. Since the appeals are pending from the year 2013, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellant/State and carefully perused the materials placed on record and decide the appeals on merits.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 8 It is seen that P.W.2 had lodged a complaint stating that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-37-N-6966, which was parked in front of the Suguna Thirumana Mandapan was missing. After receipt of the complaint, P.W.3 had registered a case in Cr.No.1148 of 1996, and later it was closed 'as undetectable'. P.W.4 and P.W5, who are Insurance Officials, had clearly stated that, since the case was closed 'as undetectable', the claim of P.W.2 was accepted and they have settled an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. When P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that the Car purchased by him was found to be stolen car, it was noticed that the said Car was connected with the Cr.No.1148/1996, which was closed 'as undetectable'. Hence the link has been clearly proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence. Furthermore, one of the accused, namely A3, had admitted the charges levelled against him and imprisonment was imposed, who is none other than one of the sons of A1 and brother of A2. The appellants/accused conspired together and fabricated the RC books of stolen Cars and thereby committed the offence charged against them. The trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants, but the lower appellate Court failed to note that already one of the accused had admitted the offence alleged against him and since these accused denied the allegations, trial commenced and ended in conviction. http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Therefore, this Court is of the view that the acquittal of the appellants/accused by judgment dated 04.10.2012 is liable to be set aside, since the judgment of conviction of the trial Court is well founded and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The lower appellate Court is a fact finding Court and by independently appreciating evidence gave independent finding, but, when the trial Court has given cogent reason for its finding for conviction and the judgment of trial Court is well founded, the lower appellate Court cannot interfere with the judgment of conviction without any valid reason and ground.
9 In the result, both criminal appeals are allowed and judgment of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court dated 04.10.2012 is hereby set aside and the judgment of conviction made by the trial Court dated 19.07.2011 is hereby restored. The learned Magistrate is directed to secure the custody of the accused through jurisdictional police, to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if any.
15.04.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order cgi http://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN,J.
Cgi To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
Pre-Delivery Judgment in Crl.A.Nos.261 & 265 of 2013 15.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in