THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2005 State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D. (Metro), Chennai (Cr.No.14/98) .. Appellant Vs 1.Sanjeevirayan 2.S.R.Bhagdi 3.B.K.Bhagdi
4. Ashis Bhagdi .. Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.6489/2000, dated 19.12.2002 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
For Appellant : Ms.M.F.Shabana, Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Jayaprakash For 4th Respondent : Mr.V.Parthiban (Respondents 2 and 3 died)
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondents/A1 to A4 in C.C.No.6489/2000, dated 19.12.2002 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8. A.1 to A.4 stood charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 467, 468 and 468 r/w 471 IPC and A.2 to A.4 separately stood charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 471 r/w 468 IPC. The trial Court acquitted all the accused by the judgment dated 19.12.2002 passed in C.C.No.6489/2000.
2. Pending appeal, A.2 and A.3 died on 10.01.2015 and 16.07.2014 respectively. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the appellant filed a Memo along with the death certificates of A.2 and A.3. The Memo intimating the death of A.2 and A.3 is recorded and the appeal as against respondents 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 is dismissed as abated.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) A.2 to A.4 were the Directors of one M/s.H.M.Brothers Private Ltd., in the year 1989 and they were engaged in the supplying of S.K.F. bearings to the Government Departments regularly. In the year 1989, the above Company was black listed on the ground that the bearings supplied by the Company were not genuine. Subsequently, A.2 to A.4 with the help of A.1, who was working as Office Assistant, in Tamil Nadu State Sugar Corporation Limited, created a fabricated letter as if it were issued by the Government stating that the ban order issued against the Company has been lifted with a warning that the Company shall not indulge in such a practice in future. A.2 and A.4 with the aid the above said fabricated letter, approached various Government Corporations seeking purchase orders. While so, the Prohibition and Excise department received an anonymous letter, wherein it was stated that the accused Company prepared a forged letter, as if the ban order issued against the accused company has been lifted by the Government, and they were started supplying their bearings to the Government Corporations. After having came to know about the same, P.W.1, Special Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department filed a complaint, Ex.P.5.
(ii) On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.12, the Circle Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, registered a case in Cr.No.14 of 1998, for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, and he prepared F.I.R Ex.P.27 and took up investigation. He recorded the statement of P.W.1 and other Government Officers. On 11.02.1999, he arrested A.1. On such arrest, A.1 gave a confession statement voluntarily. On the basis of the disclosure statement, P.W.12 recovered a manual typewriter machine M.O.1 from the Company of A.1.
(iii) Pending investigation, A.2 to A.4 were granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court. P.W.12 during investigation recorded the statements of ten other witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet on 29.9.1999.
(iv) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were exhibited, besides one Material Object namely, the Halda English Typewriter Machine (M.O.1).
(v) Out of the above witnesses examined, P.W.1, the then Special Secretary in Prohibition and Excise Department, is the complainant in this case. According to him, the Company, in which A.2 to A.4 were directors, was blacklisted. Subsequently, they had arranged fabricated the documents and prepared a letter as if the order black listing of the company has been lifted, and with the aid of the same, A.2 to A.4 approached various Government Corporations seeking purchase orders. Therefore, he filed a complaint against the respondents 2 to 4. According to him, after the Company was blacklisted, the respondents 2 to 4 took steps to remove their Company from the list of blacklist, addressing various letters to Government. As the same went in vein, A.2 to A.4 approached A.1, who was working as Assistant in Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Limited and A.1 assured that he will take steps to get the ban lifted. Thereafter, A.2 to A.4 Company received a letter on 4.6.1996 informing that the black listing of the Company has been lifted by the Government. But, on seeing the letter in question, P.W.1 got suspicion. Hence, he sent the said letter to the Inspector, C.B.C.I.D.
(vi) P.W.3 was the then Superintending Engineer in Ennore Thermal Power Station in the year 1997, and now retired from service. According to him, someone met him and produced a xerox copy of the letter Ex.P.1, stating that the ban order issued to A.2 to A.4 Company has been lifted. P.W.3, after having verified the same, did not place any order to them as the said Company was not registered with them.
(vii) P.W.4 was the then Deputy Manager of Tamil Nadu Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Safety). According to him, in the month of August 1996, he received a letter from the Prohibition and Excise Department stating that as if the ban order issued against A.2 to A.4 Company has been lifted, but, indeed the order blacklisting the Company was not lifted by the Prohibition and Excise Department against the Company. Thereafter, a person approached him claiming to be one of the Directors of that Company by showing the letter Ex.P.1 and requested him to place purchase orders to them. But, he refused to place any order to the Company.
(viii) P.W.5, who was the then Accounts Officer in Tamil Nadu Co- operative Sugar Corporation has stated that the Inspector, C.B.C.I.D obtained the files relating to signature of A.1 and also the leave letters of
A.1 from him and referred the same to P.W.12.
(ix) P.W.6, the then Superintendent in Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation, is a witness to the recovery of M.O.1, the Halda Typewriting Machine.
(x) P.W.7, the then Assistant in Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation is an another witness to the recovery of M.O.1, the Halda Typewriting Machine.
P.W.8 turned hostile. P.W.9, who was running the business of Real Estate, is a witness to the confession statement of A.1
(xi) P.W.10, the Hand Writing Expert in Forensic Science Department, who compared the signatures found in Ex.P.1, Government letter and Ex.P.2 opined that the disputed writings and the signatures are tallied with the specimen signature and specimen writings. He further opined that the machine used for making the specimen typewritten matter was used for making the disputed letter.
(xii) P.W.11, who was working as Inspector (Crime Branch) in Esplanade Police Station, Chennai in the year 1997, on receipt of Ex.P.4 letter, from the Government, enquired A.2 to A.4. At that time A.2 to A.4 produced Ex.P.1 and he recovered the same. Further, according to P.W.11, when he enquired A.2 to A.4 about Ex.P.1, they failed to give any answer. As per instructions, he sent an enquiry report to the Special Crime Branch.
(xiii) P.W.12, Jegadeesan, the then Inspector in City Crime Branch registered the case based on the complaint given by P.W.1, and conducted the investigation. In the course of investigation, he arrested A.1 and recovered M.O.1. He recorded the confession statement of A.1 and also recorded the statement of four other witnesses and on completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
(xiv) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. To prove their case, on the side of defence, A.1 got himself examined as D.W.1 and marked a document, namely, the final report dated 2.5.1997 as Ex.D.1.
(xv) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the accused from the charges, the State is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
4. I have heard Ms.M.F.Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and Mr.V.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. I have also perused the records, carefully.
5. It is seen from the records that the charge sheet was filed against A.1 for the offence under section 465 IPC, that he had fabricated the Government letter as if the Government had lifted the black listing of
A.2 to A.4 Company. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined P.W.2, an erstwhile employee of A.2 to A.4 Company. According to him, one of the Directors of the Company requested him to take steps to lift the ban order and in turn, he approached A.1 and A.1 assured him that he will take steps to lift the ban order. Thereafter, on 04.06.1996 A.2 received a letter from the Government lifting the ban order. P.W.12 based on a letter received from the Government, registered a case, and during investigation he had arrested the accused and pursuant to his confession, P.W.12 seized M.O.1 typewriter machine from his office. The signatures and writings found in Ex.P.1 letter tallied with the admitted signatures and writings of A.1 and the characters found in Ex.P.1 were typed by using M.O.1 typewriter machine.
6. The trial Court, after having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and other evidences came to the conclusion that the recovery of Ex.P.1 has not been proved by the prosecution as there was no material evidence to prove that the alleged fabricated letter was typed by using M.O.1, the type writer machine and the signature found in Ex.P.1 was allegedly made by one Ramalingarajan and the signature of Ramalingarajan has not been compared by the Handwriting Expert to show that the signature found in the letter was not that of Ramalingarajan and therefore, acquitted the accused.
7. The trial Court further held that there was no material to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 120 IPC and also no material on record to prove that A.2 to A.4 engaged A.1 for creating the fabricated letter Ex.P.1 and that they hatched a criminal conspiracy for creating Ex.P.1 and it was used by A.2 to A.4 and Ex.P.1 was recovered from A.2 to A.4.
8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that A.1 fabricated the letter Ex.P.1 and it was subsequently used by A.2 to A.4 and Ex.P.1 letter was also recovered from the Company of A.2 to A.4. So far as the recovery of Ex.P.1 fabricated letter is concerned, it was alleged to have been seized by P.W.11, and the same was sent to the Government. During the enquiry, conducted by P.W.11, he had stated that A.2 to A.4 gave a letter stating that the ban order imposed against the Company, has been lifted. But, in the cross examination he has admitted that he did not seized Ex.P.1 under the cover of any mahazar, and no witness has been examined to prove the seizure of Ex.P.1 from A.2 to A.4. During the trial, P.W.11 himself had stated that he sent Ex.P.1 to the Government along with a report. The report was marked as Ex.D.1. In that there is nothing to show that Ex.P.1 was recovered from A.2 to A.4.
9. So far as the using of Ex.P.1, the fabricated letter is concerned, P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were the officials of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Metropolitan Transport Corporation respectively, stated that one person met them and told that he is a Director of A.2 to A.4 Company and gave a letter to them. But, they did not identify A.2 to A.4, and there is no evidence to establish that it was only this accused met them and produced the copy of Ex.P.1. Apart from that it is not the case of prosecution that using Ex.P.1, A.2 to A.4 obtained any purchase orders from Government. Considering all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused.
10. In an appeal against acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system which envisages that every person, accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless his guilt is proved before the Court of law. Secondly, if once the accused has secured an order of acquittal in his favour, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the judgment of the Court below. Even if there are two views possible on the basis of evidences on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court, merely because another view is possible. In the above said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same deserves only to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.6489 of 2000, dated 19.12.2002 is hereby confirmed.
08.02.2017 cla Index:Yes/ No To
1. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J cla Crl.A.No. 150 of 2005 08.02.2017