Madras High CourtCRL RC/1456/2013dismissed

Gulf Oil I Ltd By Regional v. S.Kathiresan

2015-11-30Honourable Mr Justice C. T. Selvam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 30.11.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1456 of 2013 Gulf Oil (I) Ltd., by Regional Manager Southern Region and authorized Representative R.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner vs.

1.S.Kathiresan 2.The Inspector City Crime Branch Coimbatore (Cr.No.25 / 03) .. Respondents Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.to set aside passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore dated 19.06.2007 made in C.C.No.225 of 2005.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Loganathan For Respondents:

Mr.K.Rajasekaran for R1 Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for R2

O R D E R

This revision arises against the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.225 of 2005 on 19.06.2007.

2. The defacto complaint was a manufacturer and seller of petroleum products and the first respondent was a distributor thereof. The allegation against the first respondent was that he has misappropriated moneys belonging to the complainant company. On the complaint of the petitioner/complainant, a case in Crime No.25 of 2003 on the file of second respondent was registered. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was tried in C.C.No.225 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore for offence under Section 409 IPC (2 counts).

3. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 51 exhibits. On the side of the defence, first respondent was examined and 11 exhibits were marked. On appreciation of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

materials before it, the Court below under Judgment dated 19.06.2007, rendered a finding of acquittal. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for first respondent and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for second respondent.

5. In rendering a finding of acquittal, amidst several reasons, the Court below has observed that the petitioner/complainant had dealt through several dealers and therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner/complainant to inform the particulars of the transactions with the respondent and produce records there regards. The petitioner had failed to do so. PW1 had deposed to first respondent/accused admitting to being due in a sum of Rs.8,51,644.50 through a written communication. Such communication had not been marked. The first respondent had been a dealer between 21.07.1993 and 01.05.1995. The complaint had been preferred as late as on 09.07.2003. Finding no material to support the contention raised by the petitioner/complainant against the first respondent, the Court below has rendered a finding of acquittal. This Court do not find any error in the judgment under challenge.

6. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore 2.The Inspector City Crime Branch Coimbatore 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.1456 of 2013 kgk[co] srg 20/01/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/