Madras High Court
K.Selvanathan : Revision vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 April, 2018
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation
16.04.2018
Date of Judgment
24.04.2018
DATED: 24.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.396 of 2008
K.Selvanathan : Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Woraiyur Police Station,
Woraiyur, Trichy. : R1/Complainant
2.Plous Paul Loganathan : R2/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 &
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of acquittal dated
15.11.2007 and made in C.A.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional
District Judge (PCR), Trichy, reversing the judgment of conviction and
sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy,
dated 13.04.2007 and made in C.C.No.239 of 2005.
!For Revision Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
^For 1st Respondent : Ms.M.Anandha Devi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
:JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order of acquittal, dated 15.11.2007 and made in C.A.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy, reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the 2nd respondent/A1 by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, dated 13.04.2007 and made in C.C.No.239 of 2005.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused had entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant, accepting Rs.4 Lakhs as advance to alienate the property in favour of him and during the pendency of the valid agreement, he has forged the document as if the sale was cancelled between the parties and further a sale was executed in favour of his sister and thereby, he fraudulently impersonated the signature of the complainant.
3.In the trial court, 11 witnesses were examined and 8 exhibits were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. The trial court convicted the 2nd respondent/A1 for the offences under Sections 468, 419 and 423 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years of RI and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer 3 months of SI for the offence under Section 468 IPC; to suffer one year RI each, for the offences under Sections 419 and 423 IPC and acquitted the other accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, A1 has preferred appeal before the I Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy in C.A.No.61 of 2007 and the first appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Judge and acquitted A1. Against the judgment of the first appellate court, the revision petitioner/Complainant is before this court.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the accused has to be prosecuted for the involvement of the criminal offence of impersonating PW1 and also for fraudulently alienating the property in favour of his sister to deceit and defraud PW1 and the first appellate court without considering the prosecution case has simply considered the date on which it came to the knowledge of PW1 and the date of execution of the deed by the accused and the averments of PW1 to PW3 are not required to be considered with regard to the knowledge, but the first appellate court has not considered and held that charges are not proved and the first appellate court had committed error of law in holding that the signatures obtained by the accused, which were sent for Forensic Lab tallies with the signature of PW12 and it was not tallying with signatures found in other documents and the signatures in Exs.P1 and P3 are contradictory, which would prove that the beneficiary of the deed of cancellation of agreement is none other than the first accused and the first accused had committed impersonation and by falsification of records and by further alienating the property in favour of his sister, has committed a serious offence and he was rightly prosecuted by the trial court and the first appellate court without considering the charges has disbelieved the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the non-submission of the request of Forensic lab through the Judicial Magistrate will not defeat the entire investigation and the reason of the first appellate court for acquitting the accused is not legally sound under the criminal juris-prudence and the first appellate court ought not to have held that there are infirmities between the witnesses of PW1, PW2 and the signature was admitted by the accused and there is no rebuttal by him, while questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the second accused himself has not defended or disputed the signature made by him during investigation and the first appellate court took a different view and held that the prosecution has not proved the signature of the accused and hence, the reasoning adduced by the trial court for acquitting the accused is against law and the entire evidence was misquoted and misconceived for the purpose of acquittal and hence, the order of the first appellate court has to be set aside and prays that the criminal revision has to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/A1 argued that there was no procedural illegality or manifest error of law in the judgment of the first appellate court and the first appellate court passing that order had not overlooked the evidence clinching the issue and the first appellate court only after analysing the entire evidence and document, acquitted the accused and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.
6.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7.It is admitted that there was a sale agreement, dated 23.08.1999 entered into between PW1 and A1. PW1 is the victim. PW1 stated during his evidence that during year 1999, he requested A1 to execute the sale deed, but A1 evaded and then, he went to the Sub Registrar Office and he enquired about the sale agreement on 31.07.2001 and in the Sub Registrar Office, they stated that on 15.07.2001, the sale agreement was cancelled and then he gave a complaint before the Registrar and the Registrar directed him to file complaint before the police and then, he gave the complaint before the police station.
8.PW2 and PW3 have stated during their evidence that they stood as witnesses in the sale agreement and PW1 is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but A1 evaded to execute the sale deed and after enquiry in the Sub Registrar Office, they found that the sale agreement was cancelled, but PW1 has not cancelled the sale agreement. PW1 to PW3 have not stated during their evidence that A1 impersonated PW1 and cancelled the sale agreement.
9.On perusal of Ex.P1 sale agreement, it is stated that PW1 has to pay Rs.2.50 Lakhs to M/s.Stenson to be paid by A1 and the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to be paid by A1 to Sabestian and only on the payment to the above persons, the sale agreement has to be executed. But in this case, PW1 admitted during his cross examination that:-
?ehDk; 1tJ vjphpa[k; bra;j fpiua xg;ge;j gj;jpuj;jpy; ];ld;rd; vd;w epWtdj;jpw;F Kjy; vjphp bfhLf;f ntz;oa 250000/- ija[k; brgh];oahd; vd;w egUf;F 1tJ vjphp bfhLf;f ntz;oa 3 yl;r U:ghiaa[k; ehd; milj;J tpl;L gpwF fpiuak; bra;J bfhs;tjhf xg;ge;jk; Vw;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd.; me;j fpiua xg;ge;jg;go epge;jidapd; mog;gilapy; jhd; ehd; gzk; brYj;jtpy;iy. g[fhhpy; me;j epge;jidapd;go gzj;ij fl;otpl;nld; vd;Wk; mjd;gpwF jhd; 1tJ vjphpaplk; ngha; xg;ge;jj;ij gw;wp nfl;nld; vd;W brhd;dhy; Qhgfkpy;iy.?
Hence, it reveals that PW1 has not complied the conditions found in the Ex.P1 sale deed.
10.As per the prosecution, A1 impersonated some person as PW1 and cancelled the sale agreement. But the Investigating Officer has not arrested the person, who was impersonated as PW1. PW9 arrested A1. But no confession was recorded from A1. Hence, it creates doubt about the prosecution.
11.PW4 is the Sub Registrar, who is in charge at the time of occurrence. PW4 stated during her evidence that A1 and PW1 presented the cancellation deed and then, she cancelled the sale agreement. PW4 has categorically stated that only after identification of PW1 and A1 and other witnesses, she cancelled the sale agreement.
12.PW6 is the finger print expert. PW6 received the sale agreement deed and cancellation agreement deed and after examination, he found that in the cancellation deed, thumb impression was found not that of PW1. The thumb imprison of PW1 and A1 were not taken for comparison.
13.PW7 is the Handwriting Expert. The sample hand writing of PW1 and A1 were not clean in front of the Registrar and it was admitted by the Investigating Officer. Further, the thumb impression of A1 and hand writing of the accused were not taken for comparison. Since the accused disputed that he has not cancelled the sale agreement, it is the material that the thumb impression and handwriting of A1 also to be obtained and compared. But the prosecution has failed to take steps to compare the thumb impression of A1. Hence, it is fatal to the prosecution.
14.The first Appellate Court, after considering all these aspects, has rightly set aside the order of the trial court and acquitted the 2nd respondent/A1, which do not call for interference by this court.
15.In the result, this Criminal Revision fails and the same is dismissed.
To,
1.The Judicial magistrate No.IV, Trichy.
2.The I Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.