RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.860 of 2007 and 1127 of 2007 are the accused Nos.7 and 8 respectively in C.C.No,72 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. Both are petitioners filed petition before the learned Magistrate under section 239 of Cr.P.C., to discharge them form the above said proceedings, but the said Petitions were dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the above Criminal Revision Cases.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 Achairram and Berraram were running a Jewellery Shop at Gudiyatham Town and they collected a sum of Rs.90,000/- from the defacto complainant namely one G. Ramesh Kumar and by promising to return the above said amount along with the interest, executed a pro-note on his favour. Similarly, they have also collected huge sums of money from several other persons and in total they have collected a sum of Rs.87,69,877/- from 226 person. THEse amounts were collected during the period from 1995 to 2000. During June 2000, all of a sudden, the accused Nos.1 and 2 sold all their properties and they have escaped to Rajasthan State. 2.1. A case was registered by the District Crime Branch, Subsequently the case was also transferred from District Crime Branch to the Economic Offence Wing-II, Vellore on 21.8.2009 and further investigation was done by the Investigating Officer, E.O.W. II, Vellore. According to the Investigating Officer, it was ascertained that the accused Nos.1 and 2 being relatives among themselves conspired with A3 to AB, being friends and in order to cheat the Depositors, accused No.1 fraudulently transferred the properties in the name of accused Nos.4 to 8, by giving power of attorney to accused No,3 and thereby preventing the distribution of the properties to the Depositors, who were the affected parties. 2.2. THE first accused sold the properties situated in Documents No.17/294, Annaji Rao Street, Sandapettai, Gudiyatham and executed a Sale Deed in favour of the 7th accused, who is the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No,860 of 2007 and the Sale Deed was registered on 09.09.1999 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gudiyatham. Likewise, the accused No.1 executed Sale Deed regarding his property namely house and shops situated at Rajasthan State in favour of the accused No,8, who is the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2007 and the Sale Deed was registered on 24.06.2000 at the office of the Sub-Registrar at Sojat, Pali District, Rajasthan State.

(3.) SIMILARLY, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2007 submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan and when he came to know that the property is about to be sold, he had no knowledge about the transactions of the first accused in Tamil Nadu State, decided to purchase the property after verifying the Encumbrance Certificate and he purchased the property for a valuable consideration.