CRL A/200/2018 of KULANDAISWAMY, M/A.53 YRS Vs NATARAJAN, M/A.65 YRS on 8 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the Judgment of acquittal passed in Crl.A.No.14 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge reversing the Judgment of conviction in CC.No.36 of 2010, which was taken on file, on the private complaint given by the appellant.

CRL A No. 200 of 2018

2. It is the case of the appellant that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first respondent herein; that he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A1 to secure the said loan; that contrary to the understanding, A1 executed a sale agreement in favour of A2 on 02.01.1998; that the appellant was paying interest on the said loan continuously; that from the year 1999, he had not paid the interest due to financial crisis; that taking advantage of the same, using the Power of Attorney, A1 executed a sale deed in favour of A2 and A3 on 21.09.1999; that when the petitioner came to know of the said fact, he approached A1, who promised to cancel the sale deed if the appellant repaid the entire amount with interest; that in the year 2008, the appellant repaid the entire loan and when he approached A1, A1 gave evasive replies; and thus committed the offences under Sections 406, 418, 420, 423 & 468 of IPC. The complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., was taken on file by the learned Magistrate.

3. The appellant had examined three witnesses on his side, including himself and marked Exts.P1 to P8. The respondent did not examine any witness, however, marked Exts.D1 to D3.

CRL A No. 200 of 2018

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 406, 418, 420, 423 & 468 of IPC and sentenced him to four months simple imprisonment for each of the offences under Section 406, 418 and 423 IPC and one year simple imprisonment for each of the offences under Section 420 and 468 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed by the impugned Judgment.

5. Mr.G.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Judgment of acquittal is perverse; that the appellate Court ought not to have reversed the well considered Judgment of the trial Court; that the appellate Court failed to advert to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who have deposed that there was a loan transaction and the appellant had repaid the loan; and that merely because the appellant had not approached the civil Court, the offences committed by the respondents cannot be ignored. The learned counsel also submitted that the documents relied upon by the respondents cannot be believed as they are forged documents, which have been ignored by the learned appellate Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents per contra submitted that the appellate Court had taken into consideration that no oral evidence can be let in

CRL A No. 200 of 2018

contrary to the document; that even according to the appellant, he was aware of the fact that the sale deed was executed in favour of A2 and A3 by A1 in the year 1999 and he had not taken any steps to cancel the sale deed; and that no proof has been produced by the appellant to establish the repayment of loan to the respondents.

7. As stated above, the appellant had examined PW1 to PW3 to prove his case before the trial Court. The sum and substance of his allegation is that he had borrowed loan and only as a security, he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first respondent; that the accused had misused the said Power of Attorney and executed a sale agreement in favour of A2 and thereafter, a sale deed in favour of A2 and A3 in 1999. The appellant has not chosen to either lodge a complaint at that stage or challenge the execution of the sale deed. Admittedly, the Power of Attorney confers power on A1 to transfer the property. Though it is the case of the appellant that it is the general practice prevailing in that area to execute Power of Attorney to secure the loan, this Court is of the view that such a practice cannot be recognised if it is contrary to law.

8. Be that as it may, it is also seen that apart from the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, there is nothing to suggest that there was a loan transaction and that the appellant had repaid the money to the accused in respect of the loan

CRL A No. 200 of 2018

transaction. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the findings of the appellate Court. In any case, there is no perversity warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.

9. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. It is open to the appellant to pursue any civil remedy subject to the law of limitation and it is needless to say that this Judgment would have no bearing in any such proceedings. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal.

2. The Judicial Magistrate-1, Namakkal.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

CRL A No. 200 of 2018

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 200 of 2018 08-10-2026