N.Gopal v. Padmavathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31-07-2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 981 of 2001N.Gopal ..Appellant/complainant-vs-Padmavathi.. Respondent/accusedThis appeal is filed against the Judgment passed in C.C.No.23 of1994 dated 16.4.2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Polur,Thiruvannamalai District.For appellant :: Mr. R.G.AnnamalaiFor respondent :: Mr.P.M.DuraisamyJUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in C.C.No.23 of1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District.A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by thecomplainant/appellant herein against the accused for an offence underSection 406 of IPC.2. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the casewas taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, and onappearance of the accused on summons , copies under Section 207 ofCr.P.C. were furnished to the accused.3 On the side of the complainant, P.Ws 1 to P.Ws 6 were examined andExs P1 to P3 were marked.3a) According to P.W.1, when she was working as a doctor in thePrimary Health Centre in the Sattanur Dam,one Sneka Prabha had conducteda clinic at Polur and at that time, she had provided with wooden table,wooden chair and wooden bench in the clinic and since she could notconduct the clinic , she had closed the clinic and handed over the abovesaid wooden furnitures to her and asked her to use the same. The valueof the said furniture is about Rs. 1500/- and that the accused has joined https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as a member of the staff in the year 1987 at Kazhambur in the primaryhealth centre, who had received the said table, chair and bench handedover by Sneka Prabha and that the said wooden furniture's were sent to thehouse of the accused in a rickshaw owned by one Elumalai, who haddelivered the said wooden furnitures at the quarters of the accused andwhen she(P.W.1) demanded the said wooden articles back in the year 1992,the accused had refused to return the same under some pretext or otherwhich compelled her to issue a notice under the original of Ex P1.Ex P2 isthe reply sent by the accused to her(P.W.1).3b. P.W.2 would depose that the accused had worked under her at Poluras a nurse and that there is a separate register maintained for furniturearticles in the primary health centre,Kazhambur and that when ever thewooden furnitures were supplied to the hospital, it will be entered in thestock register and only after getting necessary acknowledgement in theregister, the wooden articles will be supplied and the accused hadacknowledged in the register, after receiving the wooden articles from theprimary health centre, Kazhambur.3c. P.W.3 is the Doctor Ramalingam, who had worked as a doctor inthe primary health centre , Kazhambur in the year 1992. He has alsodeposed to the fact that the wooden articles were supplied to the primaryhealth centre by the Government and that one Sneka Prabha , the doctor wasworking as a doctor during the relevant period in Kazhambur Primary healthcentre.3d. P.W.4 , Doctor Kandasamy would depose that there is an entry inthe stock register maintained for the wooden articles at page 232 to theeffect that a chair, a table, a stool, and a long bench were supplied toone Parvathi of Polur and no furnitures were handed over to the accusedas per the entries in the stock register.3e. P.W.5 is Elumalai, a Rickshaw Puller, who had deposed that at therelevant point of time, he had transported four wooden articles in hiscycle rickshaw and delivered the same in the Nurses Quarters. But he hasfailed to identify the accused.3f. P.W.6 is another nurse in the primary health centre. Accordingto her, she knows both the complainant and the accused and that the woodenarticles to the primary health centre at Polur were not supplied by theGovernment. But the same were supplied from the primary healthcentre,Kazhambur and out of the supplied wooden articles, the accused hadgiven a bench to her(P.W.6) and that she had made necessary entries in thestock register for the return of the said bench by the accused. She doesnot know whether the said bench belonged to the Government or to theaccused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On the basis of the abovesaid evidence, the learned JudicialMagistrate had framed charge under Section 406 of IPC and when questionedthe accused pleaded not guilty.5. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he would deny his complicity with the crime. Theaccused has let in neither oral nor documentary evidence.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after scanning the evidence bothoral and documentary let in by the complainant, has come to a conclusionthat there was no evidence to show that there was an entrustment of thewooden articles by the complainant to the accused to warrant convictionunder Section 406 of IPC and accordingly dismissed the complaint therebyacquitting the accused, which necessitated the complainant to prefer thisappeal before this court.7. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the findingsof the learned Judicial Magistrate,Polur in C.C.No.23 of 1994 is full ofmanifest error or perverse in nature to warrant any interference from thisCourt?8. Heard Mr. R.G.Annamalai, learned Counsel appearing for theappellant. There is no one to represent the respondent, when the matterwas taken up for hearing.9. The Point:Even according to the complainant, the furnitures were handed over by oneSneka Prabha, who had conducted the clinic at Polur at the relevant pointof time and that the said wooden furnitures handed over to the complainantby Sneka Prabha were entrusted with the accused at her request and thatthe same were transported through a cycle rickshaw, owned by P.W.5. EvenP.W.5 Elumalai has not corroborated the evidence of the complainant toshow that the said wooden furnitures viz., wooden chair, wooden table andwooden bench were handed over to the accused Padmavathi. He would say thathe had left the wooden articles in the nurses quarters but he has not evenidentified the accused in the Court. Further P.W.6, a nurse in herevidence would depose that it was informed to her that one Gopal hadhanded over the table, chair and bench to the accused and the accused hadreturned one bench to her. Her evidence is to the effect that she does notknow whether that bench belongs to the Government or not. The learnedJudicial Magistrate had come to a conclusion that charge under Section 406of IPC was not proved against the accused on the ground that there wasabsolutely no evidence for entrustment of the wooden articles by thecomplainant to the accused. 10. Even according to the complainant, the wooden articles do notbelong to her but belonged to one Sneka Prabha , a doctor, who hadconducted a private clinic at Polur and the same were handed over to her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at the time, when the said Dr. Sneka Prabha closed her clinic. Butunfortunately, the said Sneka Prabha was not examined on the side of thecomplainant to show that the wooden articles connected with this case werehanded over by Sneka Prabha to the complainant, who in turn, had handedover the same to the accused. Hence, I do not find any perverseness inthe findings of the learned trial Judge to warrant interference from thisCourt. The point is answered accordingly. 11. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment inC.C.No 23 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Polur.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsgTo1. The Judicial Magistrate, Polur2. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai1 cc To Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, Advocate, SR.48109.1 cc To Mr.R.G.Annamalai, Advocate, SR.47279.Crl.A.No. 981/2001JSK(CO)RVL 07.08.2007