Loading...

Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007

Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 31/01/2007

CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN

Criminal Revision Case No.328 of 2004
Criminal Revision Case No.329 of 2004

1. Muthulakshmi		
	 		..Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.328/04
					/2nd Accused
2. Nagarajan
			..Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.329/04
					/1st accused
	
Vs.


Muthulakshi  		..Respondent

/Complainant

Prayer

These Criminal Revision Cases are filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C. against the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul in C.A.NoS.26 & 27/2001 dated
16.12.2003, modifying the Judgment dated 22.03.2001 made in C.C.No.70/2000 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.



!For Petitioners	  : Mr.N.Sathish Babu

^For Respondent 	  : Mr.A.Hariharan


:COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revisions are directed against the Judgment of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul in
C.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2001 dated 16.12.2003, modifying the Judgment of the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul in C.C.No.70/2000 dated 22.03.2001.

2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.328/04 is the second accused and the
petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.329/04 is the first accused in C.C.No.70/00 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. Since both the revisions arose out
of one and the same Judgment, they are taken up together and a common order is
passed.

3. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated as follows:-

(i) The complainant/respondent herein was a resident of Paraipatti,
Dindigul Taluk. The revision petitioners were residing in his house and they
have moved with the complainant in a close manner. At that time, the
complainant was working in Vijayakumar Mills, and her son Velmurugan, who
finished +2 was a jobless youth. The revision petitioners said that they will
get a job for him in District Collector’s Office. The second accused’s father
and the first accused’s husband are brothers. An amount of Rs.25,500/- was
handed over by the complainant to the second accused in Paraipatti. At that
time, the first accused was present. They promised to get job for the
complainant’s son in future. After one month, they said that the job is ready
and have to pay Rs.5,000/- further and after paying the said amount to the
accused, when the complainant asked them about the job, she was informed that it
will take further three months time. After three months, when she approached
the accused they told, it will take another three months. The complainant in
suspicion, demanded them to pay back the amount. The accused promised to pay
the amount. The first accused sent a letter on 13.07.1992 that the amount will
be paid within a month. Again on 21.07.1992, the first accused wrote a letter,
stating that he will send the amount and the complainant need not come. On
16.10.1992, a Panchayat was convened. In the Panchayat, the first accused
executed a pro note agreeing to pay Rs.30,500/- within two months. Even after
two months, they did not pay. So, the complainant has preferred complaint
before the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul. But no action was taken thereon
by the Police. The revision petitioners have committed offence under Sections
405
and 420 IPC. Therefore, the complainant sent lawyer’s notice to the accused
through registered post. The accused received the notice, but they did not send
any reply. So, she filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Dindigul.

4. On consideration of evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindigul found the accused guilty under Section 417 of Cr.P.C. and sentenced
them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved over the Judgment of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul appeals were preferred by both
the accused in C.A.Nos.26 & 27 of 2003 before the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul. The learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul found the accused
guilty of offence under Section 417 of IPC, but modified the sentence to the
effect that the accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court, and
directed to pay Rs.30,500/- by way of compensation to the respondent/complainant
under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous
imprisonment.

Challenging the Judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, these revisions are filed by the
petitioners.

5. The point for determination in these reivisions is Whether the
accused are guilty under Section 417 of IPC?

6.POINT:

On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, the case was taken
on file. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6
were marked.

7. P.W.1 was the complainant and her son Velmurugan who completed +2 was
jobless youth. The accused were residing near the house of P.W.1/complainant.
They moved with P.W.1 smoothly given promised to obtain job in District
Collectorate’s Office for her son. So, naturally P.W.1 approached them for
getting a job in Collectorate’s Office, which is not easy one. So, naturally
she would have believed the attractive words of the accused and handed over
Rs.30,500/-. The revision petitioners promised to get a job for the son of
Complainant, who was a jobless youth. Inspite of promise given by the revision
petitioners, they neither get the job nor repay the amount. The first accused
sent two letters, Exs.P1 and P2 that he will pay the amount. Since the amount
was not paid, a Panchayat was convened on 16.10.1992 in the presence of P.Ws.2
and 3. In the Panchayat, the petitioners agreed to pay the amount within two
months from 16.10.1992. Ex.P3 was the letter written by him. In Ex.P3, A1 has
categorically admitted the he received Rs.30,500/- from the complainant to get a
job for her son and as he was not able to obtain a job, he prepared to return
the amount. Inspite of the undertaking given under Ex.P3, the amount was not
paid. So, on 18.6.1994 the complainant sent legal notice, demanding the amount
received by them. Ex.P4 is the copy of the notice. Ex.P5 is the
acknowledgement. Inspite of the legal notice issued by the complainant, the
accused did not come forward to pay the amount. The failure on the part of the
accused to send reply for the notice issued by the complainant has strengthened
the case of the complainant.

8. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would categorically prove that the accused
received Rs.30,500/- to get a job for the son of complainant in Collector
Offices’ office and it is also admitted by the petitioners in letter and they
have executed a pronote for the same. Further, the revision petitioners have
not chosen to send reply to the lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant.
These are all would go to show that the accused are guilty of the offence.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported
in AIR 1999 SC 2332 (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepads Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha
Maharaj, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others) and argued that the case will
come under the case of cheating. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:-

“8. If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there
cannot normally be any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that
he has divine powers and either directly or indirectly makes that another person
believe that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to Section 415
of the IPC. Anybody who responds to such inducement pursuant to it and gives
the inducer money or any other article and does not get the desired result is a
victim of the fraudulent representation. Court can in such a situation presume
that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of Section 420 of the IPC
has been committed. It is for the accused, in such a situation, to rebut the
presumption.”

10. The learned counsel further relied on the decision reported in 2006
(4) CTC (indian oil corporation vs. Nepc india ltd.,) and argued that the case
will come under Section 415 of IPC. In this case,
by a false and misleading representation, the revision petitioners with
dishonest intention, obtained Rs.30,500/- from the complainant/P.W.1, thereby
they caused damage to the respondent.

11. So, on a careful consideration, I find that the petitioners are guilty
of offence under Section 415 of IPC. Moreover, the appellate court also reduced
the sentence and the respondent has not chosen to file any revision against the
same. So, this Court has to confirm the finding of the lower appellate Court.

12. I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in the finding
of the lower appellate Court and the same is confirmed. These Criminal
Revision Cases are dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information