Kalapana Radha vs Kuttiyappan and The State

C.S. Karnan, J.—The short prosecution case is as follows:-

The second respondent herein/Sub-Inspector of Police had registered a criminal case in Crime No. 22 of 2003 against the first respondent

herein/accused for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 452, 506(i) IPC stating that the accused promised the petitioner herein/defacto

complainant that if she deposits a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month for a period of 21 months, she would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Believing the

same, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month for a period of 21 months, i.e., from 01.06.1996 to 11.11.1999. After

collecting the said amount, the accused had not returned the promised amount. Besides, the accused trespassed into the defacto complainant''s

house and forcibly threatened to hand over the chit book, failing which, he would kill her. Hence, the criminal case has been registered against the

accused.

The accused had not pleaded guilty before the trial Court even after furnishing a charge sheet upon him and hence, the case was proceeded with.

On the side of the prosecution, six witnesses had been examined and 10 documents were marked. On the side of the defence, one witness was

examined and two documents were marked.

P.W. 1 had adduced evidence that she was a member in the auction group chit and she paid the monthly chit amount for a period of 21 months.

After completion of the said period, she demanded the said amount i.e., Rs. 60,000/-. The accused has been evading payment due on the above

chit for a period of more than one year. On 02.09.2002, the accused trespassed into her house and threatened her to hand over the chit particulars

and that if she did not do so, he would finish her and her family members. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police on

12.09.2002. Further, she also filed a private complaint before the same Court. P.W. 1 further stated that after receiving order from the Judicial

Magistrate on her private complaint, a criminal case has been registered.

P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1 had adduced evidence on the same lines of P.W. 1. P.W. 3, the Sub Inspector of Police had adduced evidence that

after receiving the order from the Judicial Magistrate-I, Thiruppur, he had registered the case. He deposed that subsequently, the matter has been

referred to the District Central Crime Branch since it has been classified as an economic offence. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had also adduced evidence

that they had been informed by P.W. 1 that the accused had cheated her. The rest of the statements of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are on the same lines

as P.W. 1''s evidence. P.W. 6, Inspector of Police had adduced evidence that P.W. 1 had been cheated by the accused after collecting the

amount for the monthly auction chit.

R.W. 1 had adduced evidence that he is working as a Manager in Venkatalakshmi Textile Mills, Tiruppur. He further adduced evidence that the

accused was also working in the same company and he had joined the service on 01.07.1986 and got confirmed on 01.07.1988. He denied that

the accused was conducting monthly chit after his working hours in his company. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the

documents marked by both parties and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused since

the prosecution case has not been proved beyond doubt. The learned Magistrate further observed that the defacto complainant''s payment

particulars have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt through independent witnesses. The learned Magistrate further observed that except

P.W. 2, the other monthly chit members had not been examined, therefore, the above acquittal order has been passed.

Against the acquittal order passed by the trial Court, the defacto complainant has filed the above revision.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt through evidence of P.W. 1 to

P.W. 6. The accused has not denied his signature which has been signed in the postal receipt. The complaint is a bona-fide one and therefore, the

F.I.R. has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police and on the basis of the F.I.R., the criminal case has been registered. Hence, there is a

prima facie case on the side of the defacto complainant. The aggrieved complainant had lodged several complaints before the higher police officers,

but in spite of it, they did not initiate any action on the said complaint. The aggrieved complainant has filed a private complaint before the learned

Magistrate for direction to register a case against the accused, after recording evidence of P.W. 1. As such, a prima facie case has been made out.

The learned counsel further contended that there is a nexus between the defacto complainant and the accused as the defacto complainant was a

monthly chit member and the accused was the proprietor of the chit company and hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to convict the

accused.

The learned counsel for the State contended that initially the case has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police as per the learned

Magistrate''s direction. The defacto complainant had not supplied material evidence regarding monthly chit amount and therefore, the prosecution

had not proved the case beyond doubt. However, as there was a prima facie case on the side of the prosecution, the case has been proceeded

with. Actually, the defacto complainant had been cheated by the accused after collecting monthly chit amounts for a period of 21 months. While

the defacto complainant had demanded the money from the accused, the accused had threatened the defacto complainant at her residence after

trespassing into her house and therefore, the prosecution leveled the criminal case against the accused. The very competent counsel entreats the

Court to punish the accused, who committed the offence.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the trial

Court judgment, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at for acquittal. Further, this Court''s view is that the defacto

complainant had neither produced any documentary evidence nor examined any of the other chit members in the monthly group chit, which are

relevant to prove the prosecution case. Further, as per P.W. 1''s statement, the accused had threatened P.W. 1 on 02.09.2002, but the complaint

had been lodged before the Superintendent of Police on 12.09.2002, and as such there was a lapse on the part of P.W. 1, hence, this Court is not

inclined to entertain the revision. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment passed in C.C. No. 847 of 2003, on the

file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Thiruppur, dated 17.09.2005 is confirmed.