STEPHEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is arrayed as third accused in C.C. No.224 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruchirappalli, who is the revision petitioner. He along with his father and mother were prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court, vide, Judgment dated 25.08.2006, had acquitted accused 1 and 2 and also acquitted this petitioner/third accused for the commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 506(ii) I.P.C., but convicted him for the commission of offence under Section 417 I.P.C. and imposed him with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.100/ - with default sentence of simple imprisonment for two weeks. The third accused, aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, preferred appeal in C.A. No.147 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tiruchirappalli. The lower appellate Court, vide impugned Judgment, dated 27.08.2008, has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the legality of the same, the third accused has filed this Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were running a shop in Door Nos. 10 and 11 in Belarmine Complex and one Arumugam (P.W.1) - de facto complainant was selling fruits in front of their shop. All the accused have induced P.W.1/de facto complainant that he can go and get employed in a foreign country and earn more money and for that purpose they asked him to bring a sum of Rs.1,55,000/ -. P.W.1, believing the said representation, has paid the said amount in instalments and he was also issued with appointment order, marked as Ex.P.7. However, later on, he came to know that it is a fake one and he has approached the accused very many times to get the refund of amount and he did not fructify and therefore he lodged a complaint on the file of Palakkarai Police Station and accused were summoned and the de facto complainant/P.W.1 has given a letter, marked as Ex.D.2, wherein it has been stated that P.W.1 has already received a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and on the date of execution of Ex.D.2, he has also received a sum of Rs.25,000/ - and the revision petitioner/third accused through one Sylvia took arrangements to send P.W.1 for a job in abroad and for that purpose a sum of Rs.1,55,000/ - has been given.

(3.) PER contra, Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that it is case of job -racketing and a poor man like P.W.1, who was giving a huge sum of Rs.1,55,000/ -, which was collected in instalments and receipt of the said amount was also acknowledged by the de facto complainant/P.W.1 in the form of Ex.D.2, and the trial Court having found that the money received by other accused was given only through revision petitioner/third accused, has rightly reached the conclusion, acquitting the other accused, but accepting the version of prosecution, has convicted this petitioner/third accused only for the commission of offence under Section 417 I.P.C. and the said findings also came to be confirmed by the lower appellate Court and since the findings holding the revision petitioner/third accused as guilty are concurrent in nature, this Court on exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, may not interfere with the same and prayed for dismissal of this revision.