Madras High Court
Rajesh @ Dawood Ibrahim : Revision vs State: Represented By on 29 August, 2018
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2018
Date of Reservation: 20.08.2018
Date of Judgment: 29.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.224 of 2010
Rajesh @ Dawood Ibrahim : Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused
Vs.
State: Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Ayikudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment passed by the II Additional
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A.No.111 of 2006, dated 23.10.2009,
confirming the conviction of the Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, Tirunelveli
District, in C.C.No.263 of 2000, dated 19.04.2006.
!For Revision Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppusamy Pandian
for
Mr.K.Samidurai
^For Respondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu
Government
Advocate (Criminal side)
:JUDGMENT
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A.No.111 of 2006, dated 23.10.2009, confirming the conviction of the Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, Tirunelveli District, in C.C.No.263 of 2000, dated 19.04.2006.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.99 at 9.00 am in the residence of witness Subramanian at Illathur village, the accused intentionally induced the witness Pechimuthu Thevar by promising to get employment for his son in abroad, if he paid Rs.50,000/- and believing his promise, the witness Pechimuthu Thevar paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused. But he failed to get employment and on demand of money paid by Pechimuthu Thevar, the accused refused to return the money and thereby cheated the complainant. The Inspector of Police attached to Ayikudi Police Station has filed a final report for the offence under Section 420 IPC against the accused.
3.In the trial court, 12 witnesses were examined and 3 Exhibits were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. The trial court convicted accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused filed appeal in C.A.No.111 of 2006, which was heard by II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the courts below, the revision petitioner/accused is before this court.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the courts below failed to take into consideration about the vital contradiction with regard to the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the revision petitioner to get a job in abroad; that it was stated in the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, 161(3) Cr.P.C statement and also in the charge sheet that Rs.50,000/- was given by PW1 as lump sum, but PW1 in his evidence stated that Rs.50,000/- was given in two occasions; that the courts below failed to note that the second instalment of Rs.25,000/- was given in cash as deposed by PW1, but PW2 has stated that the second instalment of Rs.25,000/- was given through demand draft; that the courts below failed to take into consideration that Ex.P1 Cash Debit receipt was executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the de-facto complainant in a Panchayat held in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, Kuttiraj and the revision petitioner's brother-in-law and that was held in the house of the de-facto complainant. But in-fact, the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint before the Elathoor Police station and there was a panchayat held under coercion and in the police station alone, Ex.P1 was executed by the police in the presence of the de-facto complainant from the revision petitioner and it was spoken to by PW7, who is none other than the son of the de-facto complainant/PW1; that the courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that PW1 already lodged a complaint with regard to the same matter with Elathoor Police Station and the matter relates to a civil dispute, they had not taken any action and then PW1 alone preferred the complaint to the respondent police. In view of the above facts, the accused is entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision has to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the Courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted the revision petitioner, which does not require any interference by this court and the revision petitioner is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.PW1 is the complainant and he gave Ex.P2 complaint. PW1 deposed that the accused informed him that the accused sent persons to abroad for employment and demanded Rs.25,000/- for sending his son to abroad and believing the words of the accused, he gave Rs.25,000/- as advance and the accused sent PW1's son to Bombay, but in-spite of his son stay at Bombay, he was not sent to abroad and the accused further demanded Rs.25,000/- for getting visa and he gave further amount of Rs.25,000/- to the accused, but the accused did not send his son to abroad and hence, in the presence of panchayadhars, the accused issued a guarantee letter promising to repay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to him, but the accused failed to repay the amount and hence, he gave the complaint to the police.
8.PW7 is the victim and the son of PW1. PW7 deposed that the accused used to send persons for job to abroad and believing the words of the accused, his father gave him Rs.25,000/- and he along with Kalimuthu, Jafer and another person went to Bombay and the accused gave he fake visa as if it was original visa and demanded Rs.25,000/- and he asked his father to send Rs.25,000/- and PW1 sent Rs.25,000/- to the accused, but the accused has not taken any step to send PW7 to abroad and hence, he returned to his native place and in the presence of panchayadhars, the accused agreed to return the money and executed an agreement, but as per the agreement, the accused failed to return the money and hence, his father gave the complaint to the police. Hence, the evidence of PW7 is corroborated with the evidence of PW1.
9.PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW8 deposed that believing the words of the accused, PW1 gave Rs.25,000/- to the accused at first, but the accused failed to send PW1's son to abroad and the accused in the presence of panchayadhars executed a guarantee letter promising to repay the amount, but the accused failed to pay the amount and also failed to get job for PW1's son and hence, PW1 gave the complaint to the police. Hence, the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW8 corroborated with the evidence of PW1. From the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW8, it reveals that the accused demanded Rs.25,000/- and PW1 paid further sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused.
10.It is seen from the records that for receiving Rs.50,000/-, the accused executed an agreement, which was marked as Ex.P1. To prove the execution of Ex.P1, the scribe was examined as PW11. PW11 deposed that the accused received Rs.50,000/- from him agreeing to send PW1's son to abroad for employment, but the accused failed to send PW1's son to abroad for employment and hence, panchayat was conducted and in the panchayat, the accused has agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- to PW1 and for that, the accused executed an agreement and in Ex.P1, he signed as scribe.
11.In this case, the accused denied the execution of Ex.P1. But to prove the execution of Ex.P1 agreement, PW11 was examined. It is to be noted that the accused has not taken any step to send Ex.P1 agreement to the Hand Writing Expert to prove that the signature found in Ex.P1 is not that of his signature.
12.Further, on the side of the prosecution, the person who alleged to have signed as witness in Ex.P1 agreement was examined as PW10. But PW10 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the chief examination of PW10, it is stated as follows:-
?ehDk; tp.V.X t[k; ,e;j tHf;F rk;ge;jkhf M$h; vjphpaplk; :U.50>000/- bfhLf;Fk; nghJ ehd; nghftpy;iy.?
13.PW10 has not specifically denied the transaction between the accused and PW1. But he admitted the transaction between the accused and PW1. From the evidence of PW10, it reveals that the accused received Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 cannot be rejected in toto. Hence, it is held that the execution of Ex.P1 was proved on the side of the prosecution.
14.Both the trial court as well as the first appellate court, after analysing the entire evidence available on records, both oral and documentary, have concurrently found that the accused has found guilty. This court is of the considered view that the concurrent findings of the courts below warrant no interference by this court.
15.In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed.
To,
1.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.