Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUTHULAKSHMI versus MUTHULAKSHI

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Muthulakshmi v. Muthulakshi - Criminal Revision Case No.328 of 2004 [2007] RD-TN 399 (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.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.