SALIA BEEVI Vs. ANNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 27.04.2007 in C.C.No.12168 of 2004 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

(2.) The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.12168 of 2004 on 27.04.2007, at paragraph 6, had, inter alia, observed that '... in the present case, in respect of the sale of the house, no document had come into existence and therefore, Ex.P.1 was not to be acceptable and P.W.1 (Salia Beevi), in her cross examination, had stated that she was not acquainted with the Accused and that she was not in talking term of the Accused and also had not seen him, she does not know in which year the case house was agreed to be sold; does not know about the door number of the sale of the house; does not know about what was the sale amount and on what date the money was paid to Azeez, whether the said amount was paid to him, she had not paid attention to the same'. Further, it was stated that there was no sale agreement written between herself and one Annadurai and that she had not signed Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 and also not produced any proof and no talks were held by keeping the Accused, in the presence of elders and Panchayatdars and from this, the prosecution had not established the charge against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and found him not guilty under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Challenging the Judgment dated 27.04.2007 passed by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court had committed an error in acquitting the 1st Respondent/Accused based on available material oral and documentary evidence on record.