Shanmugam v. K.K.Ramaiya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: . 10.06.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.A.No.1628 of 2002Shanmugam...AppellantVs.K.K.Ramaiya...RespondentThis Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) ofCriminal Procedure Code as against the judgment dated 11.09.2002 madein C.C.No.167 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.For Appellants: Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondent : Ms.R.T.ShyamalaJ U D G M E N TThis Criminal Appeal by special leave has been preferred underSection 378(4) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant herein on whose complaintunder Section 200 Cr.P.C. prosecution was initiated in C.C.No.167 of2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam against thejudgment of the said court dated 11.09.2002 acquitting the respondentherein/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The appellant herein preferred a complaint on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam containing the followingallegations:-On 03.04.1999, the respondent herein/accused borrowed a sum ofRs.50,000/- from the appellant herein/complainant and executed aPromissory Note promising to repay the said amount in six monthsperiod together with an interest @ 18% per annum. The respondentherein/accused was paying interest as agreed for a period of sixmonths. However, since he had not chosen to repay the principalwithin the agreed period of six months, the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ herein/complainant pressurised him for making such repayment.Consequently, the respondent herein/accused issued a post datedcheque bearing the date '09.10.1999' and cheque No.956347 drawn onCanara Bank, Thevur branch for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. A day beforethe due date i.e. on 08.10.1999, the respondent/accused met theappellant herein/complainant in his residence and requested him notto present the cheque for encashment and to wait for some more timeas he had not made arrangements to keep sufficient funds in hisaccount. After having waited till 27.02.2000, the appellantherein/complainant met the respondent/accused on the said date andappraised him of the position that the cheque would become timebarred if the same was not presented for encashment within six monthsfrom the date of cheque. As a result of the said appraisal, therespondent herein/accused informed the appellant herein/complainantthat he could present the cheque on 28.02.2000 and encash the same.When the cheque was presented in Canara Bank, Thevur branch on28.02.2000, it was dishonoured and returned with a dishonour note"funds insufficient". Thereafter on 11.03.2000, the appellantherein/complainant caused a statutory notice to be issued to therespondent herein/accused, which was received by him on 14.03.2000.Instead of complying with the demand made therein, the respondentherein/accused chose to issue a reply notice denying the borrowal andcontaining false allegations. After receiving the reply notice, theappellant herein/complainant came to know that the respondentherein/accused had given the cheque without having sufficient fundsin his account, failed to make payment of the amount covered by thecheque when the dishonour of cheque was informed to him by a noticewithin the time stipulated in the statute and thus committed anoffence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.3. After recording the sworn statement of the appellantherein/complainant and following the procedure prescribed for takingcognizance of the offence on a private complaint, the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam took it on file as C.C.No.167 of2000 and issued process to the respondent herein/accused. Onappearance, the respondent herein/accused was questioned regardingthe allegations made against him. He denied having committed theoffence alleged in the complaint. Hence the learned JudicialMagistrate, Nagapattinam tried the case. 4. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on theside of the complainant in order to substantiate the charge made byhim against the respondent herein/accused in the complaint. Afterthe recording of the evidence on the side of the complainant wasover, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.During such examination once again the accused maintained that he hadnot committed the offence alleged in the complaint. The respondentherein/accused was examined as DW-1 and 10 documents were marked asEx.D1 to D10 on the side of the accused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinamheard the arguments advanced on either side, considered the evidenceon record in the light of the arguments advanced and upon suchconsideration, came to the conclusion that the appellantherein/complainant had not proved that the respondent herein/ accusedcommitted an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act beyond reasonable doubt and that there werereasonable doubts regarding the complainant's case, which would leadto the acquittal of the respondent herein/accused giving him thebenefit of doubt. In line with the said finding, the learned JudicialMagistrate held the respondent herein/accused not guilty of theoffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act andacquitted him of the charge of having committed such offence, givinghim the benefit of doubt. The said judgment of acquittal pronouncedby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam on 11.09.2002 ischallenged in this appeal by the appellant herein/ complainant aftergetting special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C on various groundsset out in the appeal petition.6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is asfollows:-"Whether there is any defect or infirmity in thejudgment of the court below acquitting the appellantherein/accused in respect of the charge for an offencepunishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct requiring interference by this court in exercise of itsappellate powers?" 7. As against the judgment of acquittal pronounced in a caseinstituted on private complaint for an offence punishable underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant haspreferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The case ofthe appellant herein/complainant is that the respondentherein/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him on 03.04.1999and executed a Promissory Note promising to repay the said amountalong with an interest @ 18% per annum within six months from thedate of Promissory Note; that having paid interest regularly for sixmonths, the respondent herein/accused failed to repay the principaland hence on pressure being mounted on him to repay the principal, hegave a post dated cheque on 05.l0.1999 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-bearing cheque No.956347 and dated 09.10.1999; that subsequently on08.10.1999 itself he requested the appellant herein/complainant notto present the cheque and wait for some more time and that when thecheque was presented on the instruction of the respondentherein/accused for encashment on 28.02.2000, the same was dishonouredand returned with a dishonour note containing the reason fordishonour "funds insufficient". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The case of the respondent herein/accused is that he did notborrow any amount from the appellant herein/complainant; that the sonof the respondent herein/accused, by name Kalaivanan was running afinance company in the name of "Saroja Finance" in Thevur; that thesaid Kalaivanan, after obtaining loans from the Pawn Brokers'Association, went abroad; that pursuant to the said act ofKalaivanan, the office bearers of Pawn Brokers' Association namelyAbirami and Elamaran along with some other persons ransacked theoffice of Saroja Finance, took away the articles found there, seizedthe cheque book and coerced the respondent herein/accused who wasthere in the office to sign 3 or 4 such cheques and that the presentcase has been instituted by the said Abirami and Elamaran by fillingup one of such cheques in the name of the appellant herein. It isalso the contention of the respondent herein/accused that the saidoccurrence took place on 28.01.2000; that immediately thereafter therespondent herein/accused caused a notice to be issued to 1) Abirami,2) Elamaran, 3) Sub-Inspector of police, 4) Superintendent of Policeand 5) Deputy Inspector General of Police through his lawyer; thatthe respondent herein/accused also sent a letter to the bankinforming the said fact and requesting the bank officials to pass onthe information if any one produces any of his cheques for encashmentand that the above said office bearers of the Pawn Brokers'Association filled up the cheque in the name of the appellantherein/complainant and preferred the complaint using the appellantherein/complainant. It is also the specific contention raised by therespondent herein/accused that the appellant herein/complainant beinga paid employee of a pawn broker did not have the capacity to lend asum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent herein/accused. 9. When such defence plea was taken by the respondent herein/accused, the appellant herein/complainant has chosen to examinehimself as PW-1 and two more witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 tosubstantiate the allegations found in the complaint. Ex.P1 to P6were also produced. On the other hand, the respondent herein/accusedchose to examine himself as DW-1 and produced Ex.D1 to D10 on hisside. The learned counsel for the appellant herein/complainant,advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, contended that thecourt below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on the side ofthe appellant herein/complainant, both oral and documentary properlyand came to an erroneous conclusion that the allegations made in thecomplaint were not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the courtbelow failed to consider the fact that the signature found in thedishonoured cheque was admitted to be that of the respondentherein/accused and that the court below should not have accepted thedefence theory that the cheque leaves were forcibly taken from theoffice of the Finance company run by the son of the respondentherein/accused and signatures of the respondent/accused were obtainedin 3 or 4 such cheque leaves and that one of such cheque leaves has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been filled up in the name of the appellant herein/complainant andthe case and that the court below erred in sustaining the defenceplea that the case could have been foisted in order to arrive at aconclusion that there had been a reasonable suspicion regarding theappellant's case. It is the further contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the improbability of the defencetheory in the light of the fact that the respondent/accused had notchosen to give any complaint directly to the police immediately afterthe occurrence alleged to have taken place on 28.01.2000 has not beenconsidered by the court below. The further contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant is that the respondent herein/accused hadnot chosen to issue any stop payment instructions and in fact thecheque itself was dishonoured on the ground that sufficient fundswere not there for honouring cheque and that the same wouldimprobablise the defence theory of the respondent herein/accused. Thelearned counsel for the appellant also contended that properexplanation had been given for the non-production of the PromissoryNote or a copy of it and that the source from which theappellant/complainant got the money have also been properlyestablished by adducing evidence through PW-1. According to thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant all theabove aspects were not properly dealt with by the court below andhence the court below arrived at an erroneous conclusion that thecharge against the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentherein/accused would contend that there is no defect or infirmityeither in the procedure adopted or by the finding rendered by thecourt below; that on a proper appreciation of evidence and correctapplication of law to the facts of the case, the court below arrivedat a correct conclusion that the charge against the respondentherein/accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that hencethe judgment of the trial court should be confirmed and the appealshould be dismissed as devoid of merits.11. This court gave its anxious considerations to thesubmissions made by the learned counsel on either side. The judgmentof the court below and the entire materials on record were alsoperused.12. Upon such consideration and after a thorough re-appreciationof evidence brought on record in this case, this court has tonecessarily come to the conclusion that there is no defect orinfirmity in the judgment of the court below warranting interferencewith the same in this appeal in exercise of the appellate powers ofthis court. The reasons are as follows:-i) It is the case of the appellant herein/complainant that helent a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent herein/accused on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.04.1999 on the understanding that the amount would be repaidwithin six months along with an interest @ 18% per annum and that aPromissory Note was executed by the respondent herein/accused on thesaid date. Neither the Promissory Note nor a xerox copy of the samehas been produced by the appellant herein/complainant to substantiatehis contention that the cheque concerned in this case was issued indischarge of the Promissory Note debt. ii) According to the case of the appellant herein/complainant,the dishonoured cheque dated 09.10.1999 was issued by therespondent/accused for the discharge of the Promissory Note debtafter getting back the said Promissory Note. Neither the complaintnor the copy of the statutory notice given after the dishonour of thecheque marked on the side of the appellant/complainant as Ex.P3,contains the date on which the cheque was issued. They simplycontain recitals to the effect that the respondent/accused got backthe Promissory Note and executed the cheque dated 09.10.1999 indischarge of the Promissory Note debt. However, the appellantherein/complainant who deposed as PW-1 would state in his chiefexamination that it was on 05.10.1999, the respondent/accused gotback the Promissory Note and gave a post dated cheque bearing thedate 09.10.1999. When the amount borrowed under the Promissory Noteremained undischarged, it is highly improbable that the creditor,namely the appellant herein/complainant would have chosen to partwith the Promissory Note without even getting an acknowledgment tothe effect that a cheque in lieu of the Promissory Note was obtained.iii) It is the case of the appellant/complainant that interestas agreed at the rate of 18% per annum was paid for a period of sixmonths without any default. That means upto 03.10.1999 the interestshould have been paid regularly. But there is nothing in writing toshow that interest was paid by the accused or received by theappellant/complainant. There is no iota of evidence to the effectthat all the payments of interest were endorsed on the PromissoryNote. It is improbable for a borrower who borrowed on a promissorynote to pay interest without assuring that an endorsement is made onthe promissory note recording payment of interest. Even the creditorwill not omit to have such a payment recorded by an endorsement asthe same will give a new start of limitation. iv). The respondent/accused has also questioned the capacity ofthe appellant/complainant to lend such a huge amount. Admittedly theappellant/complainant is employed under a Pawn Broker doing businessin the name of Lakshmi Finance. He has also admitted the fact thathe was not the proprietor of the said Lakshmi Finance. As per hisown evidence, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- only. Itis also admitted by him that the said amount would be hardly enoughfor the maintenance of his family. Under such circumstances alone,the appellant/complainant has chosen to come forward with an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ explanation that he was having lands in Puthukottai district and thathis brother who was cultivating the lands was making payment ofRs.15,000/- annually towards the value of the agricultural produce;that he saved the said amount for five years and used the accumulatedamount to lend the respondent herein/accused. However, excepting theipse dixit of PW-1, there is no other evidence to show that he washaving any agricultural land in Puthukottai District and suchagricultural land was yielding income to the extent indicated by PW-1in his deposition. Not even the brother of the appellant who is saidto have cultivated the lands on his behalf and paid such amounts asthe value of the agricultural produce to the appellant/complainanthas been examined on the side of the appellant. No document has beenproduced to show that the appellant was holding any landed propertyin Puthukottai district. v) The clear admission made by PW-1 is that he was employed inLakshmi Finance and that he would work there daily from 8.00 a.m to6.00 p.m. There is no whisper in his evidence to the effect that hewas doing any cultivation on his own land or lease hold lands.Curiously the appellant/complainant has made an averment in hiscomplaint in paragraph 1 itself that he was cultivating landsbelonging to him and also the other lands of which he was lessee.Agriculture alone was shown to be the source of his income in thecomplaint. He has not even revealed the fact that he was employed asa full time worker in Lakshmi Finance, having the need to work in thesaid concern between 8.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m. It is crystal clear fromhis own evidence that he himself was not cultivating any land eitherowned by him or held by him on lease. Nothing has been averred inthe complaint to the effect that the brother of the appellant wascultivating the appellant's lands and he used to pay some amount asthe income derived from the land. Therefore, it is quite obviousthat the explanation offered by PW-1 in order to disprove the defenceplea of the respondent herein/accused that the appellant/complainantdid not have the capacity to lend a sum of Rs.50,000/- is nothing butan after-thought and the same is far from being even probable. vi) The appellant as PW-1, in his evidence in cross-examinationhas also stated that he was having sufficient savings in his bankaccount and that his savings in the bank account would amount toRs.50,000/-. However, he would also come forward with a further pleathat his brother-in-law had sent two cheques to the value ofRs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- to him; that the said amount was creditedto his account and that the said amount was given by his brother-in-law gratuitously. However, the appellant/complainant has not chosento produce the pass-book or the statement of accounts obtained fromthe bank to show that he was having such amount to his credit in hisbank account. Not even the name of the bank and the account numberhave been furnished by PW-1. His evidence is not clear as to whetherthe amount allegedly lent to the respondent/accused was drawn from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his bank account or it had been kept in cash. The admission of PW-1that he was employed under a pawn broker running a concern called"Lakshmi Finance" and was getting a meagre sum of Rs.2,500/- asmonthly salary which would be hardly enough for his familymaintenance, the failure on the part of the appellant/complainant toclearly state whether he had drawn the amount from his bank accountor utilised the cash kept with him as personal savings for lendingthe same to the respondent/accused, the improbability on hisexplanation that he got the amount from his brother as the value ofthe agricultural produce derived from his landed property and thecontradiction regarding the source of income of the appellantherein/complainant between the averments found in the complaint andthe evidence adduced – are enough to countenance the contention ofthe respondent/accused that the appellant/complainant did not havethe capacity to lend such a huge amount. vii) The above said aspectes are enough at least to prove thesaid defence stand taken by the respondent/accused on probabilitiesif not beyond reasonable doubts. Only the prosecution (complainant)is bound by law to prove the case of the prosecution beyondreasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused facing the chargeof committing an offence shall be expected to prove his plea ofdefence only on probabilities. The degree of proof required from himis of such a nature that it shall be sufficient for him to adduceevidence to make a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.In this case, apart from the clear evidence of DW-1 that theappellant/complainant was having no capacity to lend a sum ofRs.50,000/-, the admissions and contradictions found in the evidenceof PW-1 viz-a-viz, the complaint shall be enough to make out a caseon probabilities that the appellant/complainant did not have thecapacity to lend a sum of Rs.50,000/-.viii) Yet another aspect to be taken into consideration in thiscase is that it is highly improbable for the appellant/complainant tobe content with receiving a post-dated cheque for the principalamount alone. When the cheque was in fact presented for encashmentafter four months, the appellant who chos to get a Promissory Noteundertaking to repay the principal with an interest at the rate of18% per annum the petitioner would not have failed to get a furthercheque covering the unpaid interest portion till the presentation ofthe cheque for encashment, namely till 28.02.2000. ix) PW-1 has admitted that one Abhirami was the treasurer andone Elamaran was the president of Pawn Brokers' Association inKivalur in the year 1999. It is also admitted by him that therespondent's son by name Kalaivanan was running a finance company byname Saroja Finance. He has not denied the suggestion made to himthat the respondent/accused had sent a letter to the Canara bankinforming the bank officials that the above said Elamaran and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Abhirami along with others had taken his signatures in 3 or 4 chequeleaves after putting him in duress and requesting the bank officialsto inform him if anybody would present the cheques for encashment.He has also not denied the stand that a notice was sent by therespondent's advocate to the above said Abhirami, Elamaran and alsoto the police officials upto the level of Deputy Inspector General ofPolice. On the other hand he would plead ignorance regarding thesaid fact. Ex.D2 is the copy of the letter sent to Canara Bank bythe respondent herein/accused on 28.01.2000 itself informing the bankofficials at to what transpired on 28.01.2000 and requesting them toinform the particulars of the persons who might present those chequesfor encashment.x) The bank official who was examined as PW-2 on the side of theappellant/complainant himself has clearly admitted the fact that sucha letter was received by the bank. One may wonder how the cheque wasreturned with a dishonour note "funds insufficient" – if at all sucha letter had been issued by the bank. The answer is that in the saidletter Ex.D2, no instruction had been given to the bankers to stoppayment. The only instruction given to the bankers was to furnishthe particulars of the persons who might be presenting the chequesfor encashment. The said letter has been produced not for provingthat he had countermanded the cheque. On the other hand, it has beenproduced to show that even a month prior to the date of presentationof the cheque for encashment, without knowing in whose name thecheque would be filled up and presented for encashment, therespondent/accused had given such a letter to the bank informing thebank that his signatures had been obtained in the cheque leaves aftercausing intimidation. This court does not even find any reason toquestion the reliability of the testimony of PW-2, a bank official.In fact PW-2 was examined on the side of the appellant/complainant.The acknowledgement in proof of service of such letter by registeredpost has also been produced and marked as Ex.D3. From Ex.D3 it isobvious that such a letter was received by the bank on 29.01.2000itself. The respondent/accused did not stop with issuing such aletter to the banker. He has chosen to cause a notice to be sent on28.01.2000 itself to the above said Elamaran, President of KivalurTaluk Pawn Brokers' Association, Abirami Bankers, Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General ofPolice. A copy of the said notice has been marked as Ex.D4. Theacknowledgements showing the receipt of the said notice by Elamaran,Abhirami Bankers, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kivalur, Superintendent ofPolice, Nagapattinam and Deputy Inspector General of Police,Thanjavur have been produced and marked as Ex.D5 to D9. The saidnotice was received by them on 31.01.2000 itself. Nearly one monthafter receipt of the said notice by those persons, the cheque inquestion has been produced in the bank for encashment. It can't beassumed that the respondent/accused anticipated presentation of thecheque for encashment and issued such a letter to the bank and such a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice to the above said persons and the police officials. If at allit is true that the cheque was issued on 05.09.1999 itself post-dating it to 09.10.1999 and the respondent/accused was requesting theappellant from time to time to postpone the presentation of thecheque with the intention of creating evidence in defence of the casethat might be instituted by the appellant, he would not have waitedtill 28.01.2000 to issue such a letter to the banker and the noticeto the office bearers of the Taluk Pawn Brokers' Association and thepolice officials. He would have done it in October '99 itself. Itshould also be noted that the cheque Ex.P1 was presented forencashment only on 28.02.2000, nearly one month after Ex.P2 letterwas given to the bank and Ex.D4-Notice was sent to the above saidpersons. It is the clear case of the respondent/accused that therewas no connection between the appellant/complainant and therespondent/accused; that the office bearers of the Taluk PawnBrokers' Association had created the cheque in the name of one oftheir employees, namely the appellant/complainant and that theappellant/complainant has been used as a tool in the hands of theoffice bearers of the Pawn Brokers' Association for initiatingcriminal proceedings against the respondent/accused. The cumulativeeffect of all the aspects pointed out above shall lead to thesingular inference that the defence theory of the respondent/accusedis probable and that the prosecution story of theappellant/complainant is not free from reasonable suspicion.xi) First of all the capacity of the appellant to lend such ahuge amount has not only been disputed by the respondent/accused, butalso substantiated on probabilities. Secondly, it is highlyimprobable for the appellant/complainant to part with the PromissoryNote after getting a cheque when the debt remained undischarged, thattoo, when he was made to understand that the respondent did not havesufficient amount in the account concerned on the alleged date ofissue of the cheque. The fact that the respondent/accused chose toissue Ex.D2-Letter to the bankers and Ex.D4-Notice to the officebearers of Taluk Pawn Brokers' Association, who are said to have setup the appellant/complainant to prefer the complaint against therespondent/accused and to the police officials, a month prior to thepresentation of the cheque for encashment will also make the defencetheory of the respondent/accused probable. Apart from that, theevidence of PW-3, the alleged attestor of Promissory Note seems to behighly improbable and unreliable. PW-3 is also employed under a pawnbroker. He did admit that he was employed under a pawn broker and hewas getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. It is the case of theappellant/complainant that the Promissory Note was attested by PW-3and one Pari. The said Pari is said to be a person brought by therespondent/accused. But, PW-3 was not able to name the secondattestor. He would simply state that a person who came along with theaccused attested the Promissory Note as the second attestor. At thesame time he would say that he did not witness the said person https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attesting the Promissory Note. The said Pari has not been examinedby the appellant/complainant. Moreover, neither the Pro-note nor acopy of the same has been produced. The improbability of thecreditor parting with the Promissory note without the debt beingdischarged has been pointed out supra. There is an admission on thepart of the PW-1 that he deposed as a witness on the side of theplaintiff in O.S.No.56/2000 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, acase instituted by one Jayaprakash against the respondent/accused ona Promissory Note.xii) There is no evidence on the part of the appellantherein/complainant as to who filled up the cheque. Therespondent/accused who deposed as DW-1 admitted that the cheque leafwas one pertaining to his bank account and that his signature wasfound in the said cheque. He would also assert that the date, amountand other particulars found in the cheque were not filled up by him.The court below, after perusing the cheque, has correctly observedthat there is a difference in ink between the date, amount and otherparticulars written in the cheque and the signature of therespondent/accused. The same was also an additional factorsupporting the conclusion that the appellant/complainant failed toprove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thatthe defence theory is more probable and capable of at least creatinga reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.13. All the reasons stated above will be more than enough tocome to a conclusion that the court below on a proper appreciation ofevidence and applying correct principles of law, has arrived at acorrect conclusion that the appellant/complainant failed to prove thecharge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that therespondent/accused was entitled to be acquitted holding him notguilty of the offence with which he stood charged giving the benefitof doubt to him. This court also, after going through the entirematerials, comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the lowercourt is neither infirm nor defective and that there is no scope forinterference with the same in this appeal.14. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deservesto be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarasr/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam2.-do- Through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.4.The District Collector, Madras.5.The Director General of Police, Chennai.1 cc To Mr.R.T.Shyamala, Advocate, SR.21836in Crl.A.No.1628/2002ssr(co)pmk.25.6.2009.