Challenging the order of acquittal, P.W.1 has filed the present revision.
2.The second respondent herein stood charged for offences under
Sections 420 and
406 IPC in C.C.No.196 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.08.2006, acquitted the accused from all the charges. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed by P.W.1.
3.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The second respondent/accused was running a chit fund company, in which the revision petitioner/defacto complainant was a subscriber for three chits. In the above chit transaction, P.W.1 has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the second respondent/accused. But the accused failed to pay the amount and committed default and thereby cheated the petitioner. Hence, P.W.1 filed a complaint against the second respondent. P.W.4, the Inspector of Police in the respondent police station, after receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2003 under Section
420 IPC and prepared F.I.R. Then he commenced investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet for the offences under
Section 406 and
420 IPC.
4.Considering all the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges under
Sections 406 and
420 IPC and when it was put to the accused, he denied the same. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined four witnesses and marked six documents.
5.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. According to him, the second respondent/accused is running a private chit fund company, in which he subscribed three chits and paid Rs.2,50,000/- and the second respondent failed to repay the amount. Hence, he filed a complaint. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1., who spoke about the payment by defacto complainant for the chits and was also a witness for the same. The defacto complainant asked for payment of the above said amount. P.W.3 is the Registrar of Companies. He spoke about the registration of company and he stated that the Chit company was not registered under the Companies Act and also gave a letter to that effect. P.W.4 is the Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint and conducted investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
6.When the above incriminating materials were put before the accused, he denied the same and he has also examined three witnesses and marked four documents.
7.According to the defence side witness, the second respondent/ accused admitted running of Chit Fund Company and collected amount from P.W.1. Since he suffered a loss, there was a settlement between the parties. DW1 to DW3 are involved in the settlement. While the statement of P.W.2 was that P.W.1, who is his sister's husband is a subscriber for three chits each for Rs.1,00,000/- and he has paid the monthly subscription in full for two chits and another in part and while he asked for the amount already paid, the accused refused to refund the money and hence, P.W.1 registered a complaint to the respondent police.
8.D.W.1 is the brother of the accused. According to him, since the accused suffered loss in running the chit company and could not repay the money to P.W.1, he interfered for mediation. D.W.2 is the President of the local Trader's Association, who is involved in the mediation. According to him, there was a mediation between the parties and the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cash and has given his tourist van, which works out to a value of Rs.1,30,000/- and had settled to a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/-and the P.W.1 has also taken delivery of the vehicle, and delivery note is exhibited as D1. D.W.2 is the friend of P.W.1. He also spoke about the mediation and delivery of the vehicle belonging to the accused, to P.W.1. Considering all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused from all the charges. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this revision.
9.Heard Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing on behalf of first respondent and Ms.M.Malar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent.
10.From the evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 and 3, it can be seen that the accused accepted running of Chit Fund Company and also collected amount from P.W.1. Since he suffered loss, mediation was arranged. D.W.1, the brother of accused conducted mediation, wherein D.W.2, the President of the Local Traders Association, mediated between the parties. During the mediation, P.W.1, accepted to take delivery of a car belonging to accused worth of Rs.1,30,000/- and also received a cash of Rs.20,000/- totaling Rs.1,50,000/-. The delivery receipt was also produced in Court, which is exhibited as Ex.D1. Considering all the above materials, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that there is no intention on the side of the accused to cheat the petitioner and P.W.1 has also accepted the mediation and received some amount. Hence, there is no offence is made out under
sections 420 and
406 and hence he was acquitted from all the charges.
11.In the case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system is that every person, accused of committing an offence, shall be presumed to be innocent, unless his guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly, if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rm Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the instant case, as already held, the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. In the above circumstances, I find no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court and hence I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision fails and the same deserves to be dismissed.
12.In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.196 of 2003, is hereby confirmed.