P PRAVEEN Vs. T D NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the judgment of acquittal dated 24. 05. 2002 pronounced by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, egmore, Chennai in C. C. No. 8406/2000, the de facto complainant who was also examined as PW-1, has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of the criminal appeal can be briefly stated as follows: i) The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai 600 101, who figures as the second respondent in this appeal registered a case against the first respondent herein/accused based on the complaint of the appellant herein (de facto complainant) dated 08. 10. 1999, in crime No. 1263/1999 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 (ii)IPC on the file of Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai-101. ii) In the said complaint it had been stated that PW-2 - Senthil, had entrusted a sum of rs. 15,00,000/- to the appellant (PW-1) on 20. 07. 1999 to keep it in safe custody for a few days, as he was leaving on a pilgrimage to Sabarimalai; that since the appellant/pw-1 did not want to keep that much of cash in her hands,

(3.) SHE handed over the same to the first respondent/accused, who was running a finance company in the name and style of "deena Dayal Finance Limited" on the understanding that he would return the cash to the appellant/pw-1 within 3 or 4 days; that the first respondent/accused, thereafter made the appellant/pw-1 to believe that he could get a medical seat in Chennai for her son for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-; that the appellant/pw-1 believing him to be influential, asked him to use the money which was entrusted by her for keeping in safe custody; that after four days, the first respondent informed the appellant/pw-1 that it was not possible for him to get the medical seat for the son of the appellant as promised and promised to return the above said amount entrusted to him and that thereafter, when the appellant/pw-1 continuously pleaded for four days for the return of money, the first respondent/accused caused a threat to inform the officials of the Income tax department as the amount was unaccounted. It was the further contention raised in the complaint that after some amount of persuasion, the first respondent/accused promised to pay back the amount on 27. 07. 1999, but on the said date he paid only a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and informed the appellant/pw-1 to collect the balance on 28. 07. 1999 and that the first respondent/accused also informed the appellant over phone that he would withhold a sum of rs. 2,00,000/- and make payment of the balance alone and that if the appellant/pw-1 would demand that amount also, she would have to face problems with the Income Tax department. The further allegation made in the complaint is that on 28. 07. 1999 when the appellant, along with her employee by name Kumar, went to the office of the first respondent/accused to collect the balance amount, he handed over a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, alone and on the demand made by the appellant/pw-1 for the balance sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-he informed that it would be given at a later point of time; that as threatened by the first respondent/ accused, when the appellant/pw-1 reached her house she saw the Income Tax officials waiting for her; that the income tax officials seized and impounded the said amount and deposited the same in the name of the appellant/pw-1 with Reserve Bank of India, stating that the said amount would be released only if it was shown in the accounts of the appellant to the regular Assessment officer; that thereafter the first respondent/ accused contacted the appellant over telephone and informed her not to give any police complaint and to withdraw the complaint, if any, already given stating that if it was not done, he would destroy the peace of her day to day life and do harm to her physically and that only thereafter, the appellant/pw- 1 chose to give a complaint to the second respondent for cheating her of rs. 2,00,000/- and causing criminal intimidation. iii) Based on the above said written complaint, marked as Ex. P1 in the trial before the Trial court, the second respondent, who also figured as PW-7, took up the investigation and submitted a final report alleging commission of the above said offences by the first respondent/accused. iv) The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, egmore, Chennai, framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 (i) IPC and tried the case, as the first respondent/accused pleaded hot guilty. As many as eight witnesses were examined as pw-1 to PW-8 and seven documents were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P7 on the side of the prosecution. Rs. 2,00,000/- (20 bundles of 100/- rupees notes) allegedly recovered from the first respondent/accused were produced as M. O. 1 series. v) Thereafter the first, respondent/accused was questioned tinder Section 313 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. regarding the incriminating materials available in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. One ramachandra Rao was examined as the sole defence witness (D. W. 1) and two documents were marked as Ex. D1 and Ex. D2 on the side of the accused. vi) The trial court considered the evidence brought before it in the light of the arguments advanced Oh either side and upon such a consideration, came to the conclusion that none of the charges made against the first respondent herein/accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of all the charges giving the benefit of doubt, by its judgment dated 24. 05. 2002.