R.Haribabu v. T.K.Ravichandran

JUDGMENT Challenging the order of acquittal dated 17.02.2010 passed in C.C.No.48/2001 by the Principal District Munsif - cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cheyyar, the present appeal is filed by the appellant / complainant.

¶2For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranks in the present appeal would also be indicated.

¶3The case of the appellant / complainant is that the respondent T.K.Ravichandran is a Government servant and was working as a Revenue Inspector in Vandavaasi.

3.1. According to the complainant, he saw an advertisement board in the junction of Bazaar Road and Acharapakkam Road showing one 'Nadhamuni Complex' would come up in the site. It also stated that the said place belongs to one R.Parthasarathy of Chennai from whom 1. Nithyanandam 2. T.K.Selvam 3. T.K.Ravichandran (present respondent)

¶4J.Balakrishnan have purchased the property. When the complainant enquired one of the purchasers namely Nithyanandam he informed the complainant that the property was purchased jointly by all of them for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 11.10.1993 and that they paid a sum of Rs.10,10,000/- in eight instalments up to 15.02.1995. The contention of the complainant is that the respondent / Ravichandran is a government servant and that he is prohibited from purchasing the property.

3.2. Therefore, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Principal District Munsif - cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cheyyar against the respondent/accused for an offence punishable under Section 169 IPC.

3.3. Initially the private complaint was dismissed on

05.05.2000 and the respondent/accused was acquitted as against which the complainant filed a revision petition in R.P.No.13/2000 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai. The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, set aside the orders passed by the trial court judge vide his orders dated 13.03.2001 and thereafter, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.48/2001 by the trial court judge.

3.4. The complainant examined himself and four other witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

3.5. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied of having committed any offence. He examined himself and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

3.6. The learned Principal District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cheyyar, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record acquitted the accused as against which the present appeal is filed.

¶4Heard Ms.R.Saritha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Manimaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶5It is admitted that the respondent was working as a Revenue Inspector in Vandavaasi. He has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 169 IPC. Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus : "169. Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property.— Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with others, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated."

¶6In the instant case, the complainant did not adduce any acceptable evidence to show that the property was purchased by the respondent / accused. In fact it is seen from the records that the original owner Parthasarathy had given two Power of Attorney dated 25.03.1994 and 13.06.1994 in favour of Nithyananadam (P.W.2) based on which the said Nithyanandam executed sale deeds in favour of different persons. This has been clearly admitted by both P.W.2 and P.W.4. Thiru.Selvam brother of T.K.Ravichandran (accused) was running a business in one of the properties sold by P.W.2. After coming to know of this, Parthasarathy (P.W.4) had cancelled the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Nithyanandam (P.W.2) in respect of that portion of the property and executed a sale deed in favour of Selvam. Prior to this an agreement of sale was entered into between Selvam and Nithyanandam in which the accused had also signed as a witness. This aspect has been dealt with by the trial court in Para 30, 31 and 32 wherein it has been observed thus : "30.

,e;j

#o;epiyapy;>

Nkw;gb

ghh;j;jrhujp vd;gthplkpUe;J nghJ mjpfhuk; ngw;W te;j epj;jpahde;jk; vd;gth;> Vw;fdNt Ngrp xg;Gf;nfhz;lgb> nrhj;jpy; nry;tk; vd;gth; elj;jp te;j ,lj;ij nghWj;J> mtUf;F fpuak; nra;J nfhLf;f Kd;tuhjjhy;> Nkw;gb tptuk; Fwpj;J> ghh;j;jrhujp KjypahUf;F njhpag;gLj;jpaNghJ>

ghh;j;jrhujp>

epj;jpahde;jk; vd;gtUf;F vOjp nfhLj;j nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuq;fis uj;J nra;Jtpl;L> nry;tk; mDgtpj;J te;j ,lj;ij nghWj;J kl;Lk;> mtUf;F Nehpilahf fpuag;gj;jpuk; vOjp nfhLj;Js;sjhfTk;> vdNt> ,e;j xg;ge;jj;jpy;> nry;tk; vd;gtUk;> vjphpAk; ifnahg;gk; nra;jJ. jd; jfg;gdhh; tpahghuk; nra;J te;j fil gFjpia nghWj;J> mjid jd; rNfhjuh; nry;tk;> FLk;g ed;ikf;fhf tpahghuj;ij njhlh;e;J te;jjhy;> me;j ,lj;ij> fpuak; ngw Ntz;Lk; vd;w Nehf;fk; kw;Wk; FLk;g cWg;gpdh;> vd;w tifapy; fpuak; xg;ge;jj;jpy; ifnahg;gk; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhf nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶31vjphp jug;gpy;> Nkw;gb fUj;Jf;fis vLj;Jf; fhl;l ,t;tof;fpy;> Nkw;gb ghh;j;jrhujp vd;gth;> Vw;fdNt> epj;jpahde;jk; vd;gtUf;F vOjp itj;j> 25.3.94 Njjpapl;l nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;ij uj;J nra;J>

27.9.95y; gjpT nra;j nghJ mjpfhu uj;J gj;jpuk;> vjphp jug;G rhd;whtdk; 1 MfTk;> epj;jpahde;jk; vd;gth; Nghpy; 30.06.94y; vOjp itf;fg;gl;l nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;ij> uj;J nra;J> 27.09.95y; vOjp nfhLj;j nghJ mjpfhu uj;J gj;jpuk;> v.j.rh.M.2 MfTk;> mjw;F 2 ehl;fs; fopj;J> Nkw;gb xg;ge;jk; nra;J nfhz;l Nkw;gb ghh;j;jrhujp vd;gth;> xg;ge;jj;jpy; xU jug;gpdUk;> ,e;j vjphpapd; rNfhjuUkhd b.Nf.nry;tk; vd;gtUf;F xg;ge;j nrhj;Jf;fspy; fpof;F Nkw;F 8 mb> tlf;F njw;F 26 mb fhypkidia> v.j.rh.M.3d; gb fpuak; nra;J nfhLj;Js;shh;. ,jid vy;yhk; itj;J ghh;f;Fk; nghOJ> Gfhh;jhuh; jug;gpy; nrhy;yg;gLtJ Nghd;W> vjphpahdth;> ,yhg Nehf;fj;jpy;> Nkw;gb xg;ge;j gj;jpuj;jpy;> kw;w egh;fSld;

Nrh;e;J>

epyq;fis

fpuak;

ngw nra;Jnfhz;lhh;

vd;gJ

Gfhh;jhuh;

jug;gpy; vLj;Jf;fhl;lg;gltpy;iy.

khwhf>

vjphp

jug;gpy; nrhy;yg;gLtJ Nghd;W> jd;Dila rNfhjuh; nry;tk; vd;gth; elj;jp te;Js;shh;. me;j gFjpia nghWj;J> jq;fs; FLk;gj;jpw;F> fpuak; thq;fNtz;Lk; vd;w tifapy;jhd;> Nkw;gb vjphpahdth; xg;ge;j gj;jpuj;jpy; ifnaOj;J nra;Js;shNunahopa> jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy; Nkw;gb yhgk; milAk; Nehf;fj;jpy; ifnaOj;J nra;atpy;iy.

vdNt>

Gfhh;jhuh;

jug;gpy; nrhy;yg;gLtJNghd;W> mth;> yhgk; milaNtz;Lk; vd;w Nehf;fj;jpy; $l> ,e;j xg;ge;j gj;jpuj;jpYk; jug;gpduhf Nrh;e;Js;shh;

vd;gJ

Gfhh;jhuuhy;

re;Njfj;jpw;F mg;ghw;gl;l epiyapy; vLj;Jf;fhl;lg;gltpy;iy.

¶32vdNt> vjphp xU nghJ Copah; my;yJ> muR Copauhf ,Ue;jhYk;$l> mth;> murhq;fj;jhy; nrhj;ij thq;ff;$lhJ

vd;W

nrhy;yg;gl;l

nrhj;ij thq;fpajhfNth> my;yJ Vyk; Nfl;ff;$lhJ vd;w nrhj;ij Vyk; Nfl;ljhfNth> my;yJ mg;gbg;gl;l nrhj;ij jd; ngahpNyh> my;yJ NtW egh;fspd; ngahpy; $l;lhf thq;fpAs;shh; my;yJ Vyk; Nfl;Ls;shh; vd;gJ Gfhh;jhuh; jug;gpy; tof;fpd; #o;epiyfspy;> kw;Wk; Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy;> re;Njfq;fSf;F mg;ghw;gl;l epiyapy; vLj;Jf; fhl;lg;glhjjhy;> vjphpkPJ cs;s Fw;wk; vd;gJ> Gfhh;jhuuhy; re;Njfq;fSf;F mg;ghw;gl;l epiyapy;> ,t;tof;fpy; epUgzk; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. vdNt> vjphp re;Njfj;jpd; gyid milaj;jf;fth;." Thus, it is clear that the complainant did not purchase any property from Nithyanandam. It has not also been established that the property in question comes within the purview of Section 169 IPC.

¶7All the observations of the trial court judge are absolutely in order and the complainant had not adduced any acceptable evidence to show that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 169 IPC.

¶8In the result, i. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and orders dated 17.02.2010 passed in C.C.No.48/2001 by the learned Principal District Munsif - cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cheyyar, is confirmed.

06.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl To

1.The Principal District Munsif - cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cheyyar.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

R. HEMALATHA, J. mtl

06.06.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA R.Haribabu ... Appellant Vs. T.K.Ravichandran ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 to set aside the judgment and orders dated 17.02.2010 passed in C.C.No.48/2001 by the learned Principal District Munsif - cum- Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cheyyar. For Appellant : Ms.R.Saritha For Respondent : Mr.M.Manimaran