POOLCHAND (DIED), Vs. TMT. KADAIMMAL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in the private complaint.

(2.) THE appellant herein is a pawn broker having a shop at Kotagiri, Nilgiris District. According to the appellant, on 10.5.1990, A1 to A5/respondents herein approached him and represented that they are prepared to sell the tea factory at Jakkanarai village and after some negotiations, the price was fixed as Rs.17 lakhs. Thereafter, on 24.5.1990, accused Nos.1 to 5 came with Exs.P.1 and P.2 documents pertaining to the tea factory and Exs.P.3 and P.4, the plans of the tea factory and handed over to appellant herein. Believing their representation that they are the owners of the tea factory and they are prepared to sell the tea factory for Rs.17 lakhs, an agreement was prepared by the appellant herein and after paying Rs.15 lakhs in cash, he obtained the signatures of accused Nos.1 to 5. The balance of Rs.2 lakhs was to be paid within one month and the sale deed was to be executed within one month from that date. Since no sale deed was executed, a notice was issued by the appellants through their advocate on 18.6.1990 calling upon the accused/respondents herein to execute the sale deed. To that, Ex.P.8 was the reply sent by the accused wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement and also have stated that only A4 and A5 were the partners in the tea factory, which belonged to a partnership firm and A1 to A3 had nothing to do with them. The three other partners of the firm issued Ex.P.9 notice. They also denied the execution of the alleged agreement. Therefore, the appellant herein filed a private complaint before the Court after following the procedure laid down under Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment, the accused/respondents herein filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court acquitted all the accused of the charges under Section 420 IPC on the ground that the stamp paper in which the alleged agreement was written was purchased one year prior to the date of the agreement. Therefore, the Appellate Court thought it was not a genuine document. The Appellate Court also said that more than Rs.10,000/ - cannot be given by cash as per the Income Tax laws. Therefore, the payment of Rs.15 lakhs by cash was not believed by the Appellate Court. Further, D.W.1, the Finger Print expert has stated that the thumb impression found in the alleged agreement Ex.P.5 is not the thumb impression of A.1. Therefore, since the appellant has come to the Court with a forged document, the entire complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Against that acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.