CRL A/676/2017 of RAJKUMAR JOHN Vs STATE BY on 15 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the common judgment of acquittal passed in C.A.Nos.25 and 28 of 2015, finding the respondents 2 and 3 as not guilty of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 448 and 506(i) of the IPC r/w Section 109 of the IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the property in Survey No.239/1A, measuring 0.9 cents, belonged to the son of the appellant, one Alan Mathew Samuel; that the said Alan Mathew Samuel died on 11.04.2015, leaving behind the appellant, P.W.2 and P.W.3 as legal heirs; that the appellant wanted to construct a Church in memory of the said Alan Mathew Samuel; that since the appellant knew the first accused, the second respondent herein, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first accused/second respondent on 17.08.2005 in respect of the 5 cents out of the 9 cents for construction of a Church; that instead of executing a sale deed in favour of South India Assemblies of God Church, the second respondent executed a sale deed in favour of his wife, the third respondent herein; that the second respondent also obtained Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) from the Members of the said South Indian Assemblies of God Church and that, thereafter, he illegally occupied the remaining 4 cents and obtained Revenue Records in his name.

3. On the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.52 of 2009 for the offences under Section 420 of IPC. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.38.

4. The Trial Court held the appellant guilty of offences in the following manner:

Accused Sentence The First Accused A1 sentenced under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. For Section 420 IPC to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. For Section 406 IPC to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and for Section 506(i) IPC, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. The Second Accused A2 sentenced under Section 248(2) Cr.P.c. For Section 420 r/w 109 IPC to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. For Section 406 r/w 109 IPC, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment For Section 448 r/w 109 IPC to undergo three Months Simple Imprisonment and For Section 506(i) r/w 109 IPC to undergo Three Month Simple Imprisonment. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of conviction, against which, P.W.1 is before this Court.

5. Mr.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order is perverse and had set aside the well- considered judgment of the Trial Court; that the Appellate Court had also observed that there is no evidence to establish the offence of cheating or the other allegations levelled against the respondents 2 and 3 and that, therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr.G.Anandha Rangan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the impugned order is justified, inasmuch as the learned Judge has observed that the allegations only disclose a civil dispute; that in any case, in the civil proceedings, the appellant succeeded, obtained possession and had also transferred the property in favour of third parties and prayed that the impugned judgment may not be set aside.

7. Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Special Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, though the prosecution has not challenged the judgment of acquittal.

8. It is seen that the sum and substance of the prosecution’s case, as stated above, is that the second respondent has misused the Power of Attorney executed by the appellant and had transferred the property in favour of the third respondent and that he has trespassed into the house constructed by the appellant's son in the remaining portion of the land.

(i) As regards the first allegation, that the Power of Attorney did not confer any power to the second respondent to transfer the property in favour of the third respondent, the appellant had admitted in his cross examination as follows:

“me;j gjpt[ bra;ag;glhj bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpid Fwpg;ghf Myak ; fl;l ntz;Lk ; vd;w nehf;fj;jpw;fhf kl;Lk ; jhd ; vd;W brhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhp jhd;/

m/rh/M/2

gjpt[ bra;ag;glhj gjpt [ bra;ag;glhj bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpy; tHf;F brhj;jpid 1tJ vjpup tpw;gjw;Fk;. mlkhdk; itg;gjw;Fk; bghJthf mjpfhuk; bfhLj;Js;nsd; vd;why; rhp jhd;/ m/rh/M/2y; gjpt[ bra;ag;glhj bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpid 1tJ vjpup mtUila kidtpf;F tpw;f;f TlhJ vd;W vGjtpy;iy/ Mdhy; 3k; efgUf;F jhd; tpw;f ntz;Lk ; vd;W vGjpa[s;nsd ; vd;why ; mJ rhp jhd;/ m/rh/M/4 gjpt [ bra;ag;gl;l bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpy; tHf;F brhj;jpy; njthyak; fl;l ntz;Lk; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L vGjp bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ 1k ; vjpup m/rh/M/2 gjpt[bra;ag;glhj bghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;ij itj;J jhd; 2tJ vjphpf;F tHf;F brhj;jpid fpuak; bfhLj;Js;shh; vd;why; rhp jhd;/” The above admission of the appellant would clearly show that the recitals in the Power of Attorney did not specifically restrict the power given to the second respondent. Therefore, the Appellate Court was right in holding that it is for the Civil Court to decide whether the second respondent has misused the Power of Attorney.

(ii) Similarly, as regards the second allegation, that the second respondent trespassed into the house that was built by the appellant's son, the appellant had stated in the cross examination as follows: “2001-k; Mz;L eh';fs; tHf;F brhj;jpy; tPL fl;oajpy; ,Ue;J 1tJ vjpup ehd ; g[fhh ; bfhLf;Fk ; tiuapy; FoapUe;J te;jhh; vd;why; rhp jhd;/ m/rh/M/11 urPjpy; ehd ; tHf;F brhj;jpid RthjPdk ; bfhLj;jjhf ifbaGj;J vJt[k ; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp ifbaGj;Jk; vJt[k ; ,y;iy/ m/rh/M/11I vGjpath ; ahh ; vd;W bjhpahJ/ mth; vGjtpy;iy/” The Appellate Court relied upon the above admission to hold that the second respondent had not trespassed into the property of the appellant.

9. This Court finds no perversity whatsoever in the findings of the Appellate Court.

10. It is also seen that the second respondent had filed O.S.No.95 of 2009 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, for permanent injunction against the appellant. The said suit was decreed in favour of the second respondent. The appellant preferred A.S.No.33 of 2011 before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram, and the decree was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The second respondent filed S.A.No.5 of 2016 before this Court and it was dismissed on merits. It is also seen that the appellant had filed O.S.No.210 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram, for declaration and recovery of possession, which was also allowed and there is no challenge to the said decree. Thereafter, it appears that the appellant had taken possession of the property.

11. Considering all the above facts and the fact that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The criminal appeal is dismissed accordingly. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm) To:

1. The Sub Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram (Crime No.52 of 2009).

2. The Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram.

3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL A No. 676 of 2017 15-10-2026