Decided on July 03,2019

RAMASAMY Appellant


P. Velmurugan, J. - (1.) The criminal revision has been filed by the accused against the concurrent judgment of conviction made by both the Courts below.
(2.) The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner and one another in Crime No.200 of 2004 and after investigation laid a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same was taken on file by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, in C.C.No.173 of 2005. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked besides Material Objects 1 to 11. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no document was marked. During trial, the other accused arrayed as A2 died and hence trial was conducted against the petitioner/A1. The learned Magistrate, after completing trial and considering the materials, found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120(b) of IPC and by judgment dated 09.10.2009 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months for the offence under Section 420 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under Section 120(b). Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner/A1 has filed an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Erode, in C.A.No.212 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction made by the trial Court, against which, the accused has preferred this revision before this Court.
(3.) Case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was running Looping Workshop. One Rajandran had borrowed money from father of P.W.1 and did not repay the same. When P.W.1 went to house of the said Rajendran and asked to repay the money, which was borrowed from P.W.1's father, at that time the petitioner also present and the Rajendran said he will give money through the petitioner and given the telephone number of P.W.1 to the petitioner and thereafter on the day of occurrence, the petitioner/A1 called P.W.1 to come and collect money. When P.W.1 reached the place, there was one other person present along with the petitioner and P.W.1 took them into his house as per the request made by the petitioner. After reaching the house of P.W.1, when P.W.1 demanded money, the petitioner said that they have black money and if P.W.1 gives Rs.50,000/- they will give Rs.1.00 each and P.W.1 also gave Rs.1000/-. Before P.W.1, the petitioner demonstrated how the black color paper turned to Rs.50/-. The petitioner put some solution on the black color paper and some solution in the bucket of water and dipped the black color paper into the water and suddenly the paper turned into Rs.50/-. P.W.1, on hearing the whisper of the petitioner that after obtaining Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1, have to escape from the place, P.W.1 demanded Rs.1000/- which was given by him, but the accused persons had refused to return the money and ran away from the place. Therefore P.W.1 had filed a case and the same was ended in conviction.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.