Madras High Court
State Represented By vs / on 11 August, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
Crl.A.No.429 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.08.2022 Pronounced on : 11.08.2022
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2010
State Represented by:
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch CID,
Salem.
(Dharmapuri DCB Crime No.21/2004) ... Appellant/Complainant
/versus/
1. Ramesh Kumar,
2. Bagyalakshmi,
3. Aravind Kumar,
4. Senthil Kumar,
5. Govindaraj,
6. Mahendran,
7. Natarajan,
8. Vijjiram,
9. B.Shanmugam. ... Respondents/Accused
Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against acquittal
the judgment dated 24.07.2009 in C.C.No.188 of 2005 on the file of Learned
Judicial Magistrate Judge, Dharmapuri and prays that this Honourable Court may
be pleased to set aside the judgment of Lower Court and convict the
respondents/Accused (A1 to A9) as charged.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
_____________
Page No.1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.429 of 2010
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R1 : Died.
For R2 : Mr.P.Ramamurthi
For R3, R4 & R7 : Mr.A.S.Baalaji
For R6 : No appearance
For R8 & R9 : Mr.S.Mani
For R5 : Mr.M.Selvam
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused who were tried for offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C, Section 65 of Information Technology Act and Section 477-A read with Section 120-B of I.P.C as against the respondents.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, Ramesh Kumar (A1) was working in Computer Section of ELCOT Company at Dharmapuri. He was employed by ELCOT Company to design Driving License and laminate. A2 (Bagyalakshmi) is resident of Dharmapuri appointed by ELCOT Company to _____________ Page No.2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 coordinate with RTO Office, Dharmapuri. Aravind Kumar (A3) & Senthil Kumar (A4) were expert in Computer Technology and assisting Ramesh Kumar (A1). Govindaraj (A5), Mahendran (A6) and Natarajan (A7) were brokers at RTO Office. Vijjiram (A8) was Assistant in RTO Office, Dharmapuri and Shanmugam (A9) is Superintendent, RTO, Dharmapuri.
3. All these accused between 19.08.2002 and 12.07.2004 conspired to fabricate false Driving Licence and cheat the Government. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, the genuine signatures of RTO were scanned and used for fabricating forged Driving Licences. For the said purpose, A2 (Bagyalakshmi) who was posted by ELCOT Company to work in RTO Office, collected details in the Computer maintained at RTO Office and passed it to Ramesh Kumar (A1), who with the help of A3 & A4 prepared fake Driving Licenses and same was sold through accused 5 to 7 for Rs.2000/- each. To add authenticity to the fake Driving Licences, genuine holograms entrusted by the Government to A8 & A9 were used. A8 (Vijjiram) & A9 (B.Shanmugam), who were in-charge of holograms entrusted by the Government for the RTO, Dharmapuri had been stealthily given it to A1 to A4, without maintaining the account for the holograms. The fake driving license _____________ Page No.3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 manufactured in the names of (1).Malaalappan S/o.Parasol Alex, (2).Sankar S/o.Kaliappan, (3).Lakshmanan S/o.Muthusamy, (4).Magesh S/o.Lakshmanan (5).Thirunavukkarasu S/o.Govindan, (6).Pooncholai S/o.Periyasamy, (7).Kumar S/o.Pachiappan, (8).Balaji S/o.Shanmugam, (9).Venkatesan S/o.Ramanadhan (10).Silambarasan S/o. Mani, (11).Mohammed Nasir S/o.Salim (12).Shanmugam S/o.Raman (13).Murugan S/o.Kaliappan, (14).Baskaran S/o.Adhimoolam (15).Kabali S/o.Rajagopal, (16).Sekar S/o.Magalingam, (17).Durai S/o.Chinnasamy, (18).Paramasivam S/o.Kaliappan, (19).Muniappan S/o.Ramalingam, (20).Jayaraman S/o.Perumal, (21).Loganayagam S/o.Kandasamy (22).Sivaraj S/o.Chinnasamy (23).Murugasan S/o.Govindhan, (24). Mariappan S/o.Ramalingam, were sold for Rs.2000/- each, thereby created loss to the exchequer. The driving license for the above persons were given without proper driving test and procedures.
4. Based on the final report, charge for offence under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 of I.P.C, Section 65 of Information Technology Act and Section 477-A r/w 120-B of I.P.C was framed.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution _____________ Page No.4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 examined 49 witnesses, marked 30 exhibits and 26 material objects.
6. P.W.1 was RTO, Dharmapuri during the year 2004. He know A1, A2, A8 & A9. He has explained the procedure for issuing driving licence under the new system of affixing holograms in the laminated licence. On 12.07.2004, at about 11.00 a.m., he received a phone calls presumably from a reporter Junior Vikatan alleging that, without test and without appearing in person, driving license has been given to one Murugesan S/o.Govindhan, Periyakurumpatti Village. Immediately, he instructed Motor Vehicle Inspector, Saminathan to verify the authenticity of the information. The said Murugesan was secured and his Driving Licence No.1938/2002 was verified with the Official recorded and came to know that it is a fake Driving License. The said Driving license was in fact originally issued to one K.Govindaraju, S/o.Kondappan. Therefore, he gave a complaint to District Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri on 14.07.2004. During the investigation, the fake Driving License recovered from Murugesan. Thereafter, he widely published in daily newspaper informing the public that whoever had obtained fake driving license, the same should be surrendered. Accordingly, 24 persons surrendered their driving license. He directed them to hand over it to _____________ Page No.5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 Investigating Officer. Later, the investigation was transferred to CB-CID. The computer accessories were recovered from R.T.O Office for the sake of investigation. The data's found in the computer system were copied by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and in the mahazar, he has affixed his signature. As against A8 & A9, departmental action was taken for not maintaining proper accounts for the holograms entrusted to them. His complaint marked as Ex.P.1 and the mahazar dated 03.11.2004 marked as (Ex.P.2). He has identified the 24 fake driving licences and same was marked as M.O.1 to M.O.24. He had deposed that the signatures found in the fake driving licence does not belongs to A8 or A9 but had been lifted from genuine driving license by scanning. During the cross examination, he admits that the accounts for holograms used to be audited every month and for the year 2002 to 2004 when A8 & A9 were in- charge of holograms, the accounts were proper and tallied and there was no shortage. He could not ascertain that whether A8 & A9 had any role in manufacturing the 24 fake driving licenses.
7. P.W.2, the contractor under ELCOT for laminating the Driving _____________ Page No.6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 License had deposed that he saw some of the Driving License seized during the investigation and he found that the holograms are genuine. He has deposed that from ELCOT, he used to receive the holograms directly and after recording the details in their register, distribute it to every districts and from the concern Regional Transport Office every month, they will audit the stock of holograms. After knowing that there was fake driving license issued at Dharmapuri RTO, he came to Dharmapuri and inspected the section and he found that for the 24 fake driving license, there was no application available. The rest of the witnesses for the prosecution namely P.W.3 to P.W.23 they are the persons in whose name the fake driving license stood and they have surrendered it on seeing the notice issued by RTO in daily newspaper.
8. P.W.3, in the chief examination has implicated the accused Govindaraj (A5) and Bakyalakshmi (A2). Likewise, the other witnesses P.W.4 to P.W.22 had implicated A5 Govindaraja, the broker who arranged for their Driving License.
9. P.W.12 had deposed that, A6 took him to RTO Office and _____________ Page No.7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 photograph was taken by a Lady at RTO Office and thereafter, within one month, he got the Driving License. Later, he came to know that the said Driving licence is a fake.
10. P.W.15 & P.W.19 had implicated A7 as a person who organised for their driving licence. P.W.23 to P.W.25 are persons who had deposed that they got driving licence through driving School and had surrendered their driving licence which are marked as M.O.2 to M.O.14.
11. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence placed before it, acquitted the accused 1 to 9 from all charges.
12. The reasoning given by the trial Court to acquit are:-
(i). The prosecution has failed to prove meeting of minds between A1 & A2, A3 & A4, A5 to A7, A8 & A9 who had different role and responsibility.
(ii). The case of the prosecution regarding search, seizure, arrest and the confession statement of the accused persons are highly doubtful since for all these action on different dates, P.W.46 had stood as witness. While, the witnesses _____________ Page No.8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 P.W.26 and P.W.29, who are all holders of driving licence issued by the R.T.O have deposed that they got the licence through their respective driving school. The procedure for attending the test and appearing before the Motor Vehicle Inspector at RTO Office appears to be not a mandatory requirement and getting driving licence through driving school appears to be accepted practice.
(iii) While the F.I.R contains Murugesan alone as an accused, final report has been filed against 9 persons who are not named in F.I.R. They were tried, but Murugesan has been dropped and no reasoning assigned by the prosecution for dropping his name.
13. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admits that the monthly stock of the holograms supplied will be audited and checked and there is no complaint of shortage. While so, A8 & A9, who are alleged to have connived with other accused by supplying holograms for preparing fake driving license fails for want of evidence.
14. Aggrieved by the above finding of the trial Court for acquitting all _____________ Page No.9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 the accused, the State has preferred appeal.
15. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the appellant/State submitted that, the trial Court miserably failed in appreciating the evidence properly in spite of establishing that M.O.1 series (24) are the fake driving license prepared by the accused persons and the opinion of hand writing expert that the entries in the fake applications were made by A2 and same established from the data collected from the Computer at R.T.O office under the control of A2.
16. The Courts below failed to correlate with the evidence collected and the accused persons, who are responsible for preparing fake driving licence and sell it to P.W.3 to P.W.25.
17. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellants/State submitted that the scheme of conspiracy hatched in secrecy.
18. Taking advantage of the fact that the Government has shifted the _____________ Page No.10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 procedure of issuing the driving licence in book form to computerised laminated card with holograms, A1 & A2 engaged by ELCOT Company to carry out the responsibility for preparing laminated card, had collected data available in the RTO Office Computer with the help of A3 & A4 and fake laminated ID card has been prepared by scanning the signatures of the R.T.O Officers. They were sold to witnesses P.W.3 to P.W.25. This fact has been proved through the persons, who have obtained fake driving licence and from the fact that the data collected were under the custody of P.W.1 and P.W.2 had been used for preparing the fake driving licence and the holograms entrusted to P.W.8 and PW.9, who are Officers at R.T.O been misused to be affixed in the fake driving licence prepared by A1 to A4.
19. The trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence of prosecution which has established the chain of conspiracy without any break.
20. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the trial Court had cogently analysed the evidence of prosecution and has held that the witnesses for prosecution were inconsistent and contrary to _____________ Page No.11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 their own statement and also to the statements of each other. Pointing out the contradictions mentioned by the trial Judge, which was not only contradictory to the previous statement of the respective witnesses but also self contradictory in their own chief and cross examinations submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case of conspiracy or forgery. Hence, the judgment has to be confirmed.
21. Heard the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the appellant/State and the Learned Counsel for the respondent. Records perused.
22. On scrutinising the evidence, this Court finds that P.W.1 Officer in the Flying Squad of the RTO Office had initiated criminal prosecution after receiving an information that one Murugesan has obtained driving licence without attending the driving test and appearing before the RTO. Thereafter, it has been found that for atleast 24 persons driving licence has been issued which are marked as M.O.1 series, without following the procedure. The driving licence has been prepared by affixing the signature of the Officers fraudulently by scanning the original signature and affixing it in the fake driving licence using technology. As _____________ Page No.12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 per the procedure to issue driving licence, the aspirant to get license should get Learner Diving License (LLR) and thereafter, application with affidavit, has to be submitted to RTO Office. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, after satisfied with the driving skill of the applicant, will recommend for issue of licence. The details in the form with this recommendation will be entered in the computer system and thereafter, A1 & A2 who were in-charge of ELCOT Company generate laminated card and same will be submitted through R.T.O. On verification of the details, RTO will sign the card and give the driving licence to the applicant. The digital signatures has to be obtained by the representative of ELCOT Company employed at RTO Office. In this case, A1 & A3 were representative of ELCOT. In fact, ELCOT Company had outsourced the job to the Company owned by P.W.2 (Ramesh @ Ramachandran). He had deposed about the procedure of receiving the holograms from the Officer in-charge at R.T.O and affixture of holograms in each of the driving licence.
23. The prosecution relying upon the recovery of slips from RTO _____________ Page No.13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 premises and at the residence of A2, which were sent for handwriting expert opinion and contended that A2 getting the details of persons found in the slips in whose name fake driving licence to be issued had connived with the other accused. However, the trial Court has disbelieved the case because the recovery of slips at R.T.O Office was not in the presence of A2. The recovery of slips from the house of A2 was after she was taken into custody. Similarly, taking note of the fact that P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 had admitted that, there was no shortage of holograms entrusted to A8 & A9 held that the holograms found in M.O.1 series cannot be inferred has been misused by the perpetrator of the crime with connivance of A8 & A9.
24. Regarding the incriminating evidence against A5 to A7 who acted as agents for selling fake driving license, the trial Court has listed out the contradictions in the evidence of the persons who were holding the fake driving licence. The inconsistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses has become fatal to their case. The view of the trial Court, after analysing these evidence is probable and cannot be held as perverse or illegal. In the light of the above fact, though contra view can be drawn against the respondents, since the trial Court has _____________ Page No.14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 already taken a view in favour of the accused persons which is also probable, this Court is not inclined to disturb the apple cart.
25. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Trial Court passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Judge, Dharmapuri, in C.C.No.188 of 2005 is confirmed.
11.08.2022
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
bsm
Copy to:-
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
_____________ Page No.15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.429 of 2010 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm Pre-delivery judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2010 11.08.2022 _____________ Page No.16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis