IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER, 2011 / 12TH ASWINA, 1933 CRL.A.No. 796 of 2003 ----------------------------- (LEAVE GRANTED AS PER ORDER IN CRLP.14/2003 Dated 26/05/2003 CC.1773/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM) .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------ M.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR ALIAS GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PREM VIHAR, C.C.34/1242 B, BEENA ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY.P.O., KOCHI -682 024. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK, THEMPADATH HOUSE, BEENA ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY.P.O., KOCHI-682 024. 2. STATE OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON 04/10/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 796 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The complainant in a prosecution for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is the appellant since in his complaint, by judgment dated 28.3.2003 in C.C.No.1773 of 1997, the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that during the month of April,1996, out of the friendship between the complainant and the accused, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant and the complainant was made believe that towards the payment of such debt, the complainant was being given a cheque pertaining to the account of the accused for an amount of Rs.1 lakh and accordingly, the complainant had given a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the accused and at that time itself, the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.CA 4 174308 of the SBT in the Development Road CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-2-: Branch, Kalamassery situated in the Holy Angels Shopping Centre, with a claim that the said typewritten and signed cheque pertains to his account. According to the complainant, at that time, the complainant was made believe that the accused is the proprietor of Rasna Enterprises and he was requested not to present the cheque for encashment before July 1st and the accused would repay the amount before the said date. Thus, according to the complainant, as requested by the accused, the cheque was not presented for encashment, but when repayment was postponed and protracted, the cheque was presented on 12.8.1996, but the same was returned stating that 'the account is closed'. Thereafter, when the accused was contacted, he had agreed to pay the amount, but when the accused again failed to repay the amount, the said cheque was again presented for encashment on 17.9.1996, but again the cheque was dishonoured as per the endorsement dated 8.10.1996 as 'the account was closed'. It is the further case of the complainant that on his enquiry, he came to know CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-3-: that the said cheque pertained to the account of the wife of the accused and accordingly, he sent statutory notices against the accused as well as his wife. Thereafter, the complainant obtained reply notice denying the allegation and claim of the complainant and denying the execution and issuance of cheque. It is the further case of the complainant that on several occasions, he had contacted the accused and his wife in person at their house and during such occasion and in the conversation, they had admitted regarding the issuance of cheque and the undertaking made by them for the payment of the amount. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused has admitted that the cheque in question pertained to the account of one Saly with whom the accused has got acquaintance and the complainant was told that the said cheque was given to the complainant without the consent and knowledge of the said Saly. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the above conversation and the admission of the accused had been recorded, without the knowledge of the accused, in the tape recorder CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-4-: which the complainant has kept during the conversation. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused obtained a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant with fraudulent intention and through the misrepresentation and by issuing a post-dated cheque, the complainant is made believe that the said cheque pertained to the account maintained by the accused and thereby cheated the complainant and thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. 3. It is the further case of the appellant that with the above allegation, by filing a private complaint, the appellant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam and the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and one of his witnesses as CW2 and when CW2 was examined, it is revealed that the cheque in question pertained to the account in the name of one P.M.Basheer. Thereafter, the accused entered appearance and during the trial of the case, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11(a) CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-5-: and MOs.1 and 2 were marked from the side of the complainant. After hearing the complainant as well as the accused, a formal charge for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. was framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and as requested by him, the accused was permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and except PW4, all others were cross-examined. According to the learned Magistrate, PW4 could not be cross-examined since he was not made available though coercive steps were taken to procure his presence. Thus, on the basis of the above materials and evidence, the trial court has found that the complainant could not bring out the necessary ingredients of cheating. According to the court below, the complainant could not prove the guilt beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, since the court below is not prepared to believe PW1 as his evidence is not corroborated by any independent evidence. Thus, according to the learned Magistrate, in the absence of palpable CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-6-: evidence, it is impossible to find that the accused is guilty and therefore, the case of the complainant fails. Consequently, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. and thus he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above findings and order of acquittal are challenged in this appeal at the instance of the complainant. 4. I have heard Sri.K.R.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.S.P.Kurup, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate of the trial court, deviating from the normal procedure for the trial of a case which is instituted, especially on a private complaint and shutting down the evidence of the complainant and due to extraneous consideration, terminated the trial of the case without affording ample opportunity to the complainant to CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-7-: substantiate his case. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate overlooked the available materials and evidence on record and on a wrong conclusion, held that the complainant has not established the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to the learned counsel, the said findings of the court below are highly arbitrary and illegal. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the complainant may be given a fair opportunity to adduce proper and legal evidence and thereby, to substantiate the case of the complainant against the accused. 6. On the other hand, Mr.A.S.P.Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent strenuously submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., since the evidence on record is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the respondents specifically submitted that the CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-8-: complainant has produced two cassettes and the same were identified and marked as MOs.1 and 2. But, those cassettes cannot be relied as legal evidence to convict the accused for an offence under Section 420 of I.P.C, especially when the complainant has not produced any evidence in support of his claim that he had recorded the conversation of the accused with the complainant. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is no sufficient and substantial ground to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and accordingly, the appeal is to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and I have perused the materials and evidence on record. I have cautiously perused the judgment of the trial court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.K.R.Mohanan, after inviting my attention to the judgment of the trial court and the various procedures adopted by the learned Magistrate, during the trial CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-9-: of the case, submitted that the appellant has no argument to be advanced on the merits of the case since the trial court adopted an irregular and illegal procedure in conducting the trial of the case and thereby denied opportunity to the complainant to adduce legal and substantial evidence in support of his allegation against the accused and therefore, emphatically submitted that the limited prayer of the appellant is that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court to complete the trial in accordance with the procedure and law by granting sufficient opportunity to the complainant, after making adequate provision for rectifying the mistake committed by the learned Magistrate during the course of the trial of the case. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that there is no procedural irregularity or legal infirmities in the conduct of the trial by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that the contention of the appellant that the learned Magistrate has not considered the cassettes produced by the complainant, is without any CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-10-: basis and unsupported by any evidence or materials and there is no meaning in seeking opportunity for adducing evidence especially when the appellant has miserably failed to make use of the opportunities that were available for him during the course of the trial. 9. In the light of the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and in the light of the materials and evidence available on record and in view of the finding and observation made by the court below, the question to be considered is whether the findings of the trial court and order of acquittal recorded by it are legal, regular and correct and is there any procedural irregularity or illegality, crept during the trial of the case as a result of which the complainant was denied opportunity for adducing evidence during the trial of the case? 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, particularly in the light of the irregular, improper and illegal procedure adopted by the court below during the trial of the case, I am CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-11-: unable to approve the observation and findings made by the learned Magistrate that contained in the judgment, and according to me, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct and supported by materials. 11. In the light of the particular contentions taken by the parties to the dispute and in view of the issues that emerged for consideration of this Court, I am not proposed to enter into the merits of the case. But, in order to examine the issue, it is absolutely necessary to consider the specific allegation and averments of the complainant against the accused and the details of which I have already mentioned in the foregone paragraph. The whole allegation of the complainant is based upon Ext.P1 cheque. According to him, he advanced a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the accused on the basis of the representation made by the accused and on issuing a post dated cheque, after making him believe that Ext.P1 cheque pertained to his account and he is the proprietor of Rasna Enterprises. Thus, the CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-12-: accused cheated the complainant with dishonest intention to cause loss to the complainant and for unlawful enrichment of the accused and the cheque in question when handed over to the complainant, the accused was fully aware that the cheque is not pertaining to his own account, but the same was belonged to an account, though already closed, of another person and therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. According to the appellant/complainant, the main evidence to substantiate the above allegation is the admission made by the accused and his wife during the conversation between the complainant and the accused and also the facts recorded by the complainant during the conversation between the complainant and PW4. According to the complainant, though PW4, who is a relative of the accused, was partly examined in chief from the side of the complainant, but the examination of PW4 is not completed as he had absconded without affording an opportunity to subject him for cross-examination, in accordance with the CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-13-: procedure and law, for and on behalf of the complainant. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though the trial court proceedings itself would show that coercive steps were taken against PW4 to secure his presence so as to complete his examination as witnesses, but without assigning any convincing and acceptable reasons and in spite of the fact that coercive steps were taken against PW4, the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of PW4 and proceeded to complete the trial. On a perusal of the trial court proceedings, it appears to me that the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not unfounded and baseless. No reason is given by the learned Magistrate in the impugned judgment for not completing the examination of PW4, in spite of the coercive steps taken against him. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that MO1 is the cassette in which, the conversation between the complainant and PW4, claimed to have recorded. According to the complainant, the above conversation is the substantial evidence to CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-14-: prove the allegation of the complainant against the accused. But because of the absconding of PW4, the chief examination of PW4 could not be completed and nothing could put to him on the basis of MO1 cassette. So according to me, to ensure a fair trial, the examination of PW4 in accordance with the procedure and law is inevitable and justice demands for the same. 13. It is also relevant to note that the trial court in paragraph 8 of its judgment observed as follows: “8. The PW1 had brought before court the audio cassettes that he had recorded during the course of his conversation with the accused and the said Basheer. The said audio cassettes were marked as MOs.1 and 2. At the instance of the complainant, the PW1, the MOs,1 and 2 were played in a audio cassette player and the audio was heard by the court. According to the complainant the PW1, the MOs.1 and 2 contain the conversation of the accused and the said Basheer with him. The PW1 claimed that he could identify the voice recorded in the MOs.1 and 2 as that of the accused and the said Basheer respectively.” The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above observation and findings are not completely correct. Counsel submitted that MO1 cassette is the cassette which contained the CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-15-: recorded conversation between the complainant and PW4 and MO1 does not contain the conversation between the complainant and the accused. According to the learned counsel, MO2 is the cassette which contained the recorded voice of the accused and the complainant and the said cassette was recorded by the court itself in the open court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the finding of the learned Magistrate that MO2 shows the conversation between the complainant and PW4 is not correct. 14. But the counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant produced two cassettes and the same were marked as MO1 and MO2 and therefore, the arguments of the appellant are liable to be rejected. But, according to me, the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted, as the same is against the facts and on the other hand, the submission made by the counsel for the appellant is supported by the proceedings adopted by the court during the trial of the case. In the B diary proceedings of CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-16-: the court, in C.C.No.1773 of 1997 the proceedings from 25.11.2000 to 12.1.2001 are relevant which are quoted as follows for convenience: “25.11.00 Accused absent. applied.allowed. Complainant present. Call for Crl.M.P. For objection and hearing to 16.12.00. 16.12.00 Accused absent. applied. allowed. Complainant present. For further steps to 1.1.01. 1.1.01 Accused absent. applied. allowed. Complainant present. Objection filed For hearing to 6.1.01. 6.1.01 Accused present. Complainant present. For hearing to 12.1.01. 12.1.01 The complainant and accused present. Their conversation is recorded with the aid of audio tape recorder. The disputed audio cassette and the admitted one will be kept in safe custody under further order. For further steps to 18.1.01.” (emphasis supplied) The proceedings of the court on 26.5.2001 is also relevant which is quoted as follows:- “Accused absent. applied. allowed. Complainant present. The evidence of PW1 is re-opened u/s.311 Crl.P.C. Further examined. MOs.1 and 2 marked. For the cross examination of PW1, MOs.1 and 2 marked. Adjourned for want of time. To.7.6.01.” (emphasis supplied) From the proceedings dated 6.10.2001, it can be seen that PW3 was examined and summons were issued to additional witness as per CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-17-: additional schedule. It is also seen that on 4.2.2002, it was recorded that “PW4 was examined in part” and further examination is adjourned for want of time to 11.2.2002. Again PW4 was further examined on 4.3.2002. From the proceedings dated 8.4.2002 onwards, it can be seen that various steps have been taken by the court to secure the presence of PW4 and the court has issued NBW and taken steps under Sections 82 and 83 and subsequently, by proceedings dated 17.7.2002, the learned Magistrate has found that the Station House Officer, Aluva Police Station has committed an offence punishable under Section 29(a) read with 41(d) of the Kerala Police Act and accordingly, ordered notice against the said Police Officer. The above proceedings would show that though steps were taken by the court to complete the examination of PW4, the same was not materialised. 15. It is relevant to notice that the proceedings dated 12.1.2001 of the court would show that the conversation between the CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-18-: complainant and the accused was recorded in the open court and those cassettes as well as the disputed cassette were ordered to be kept in safe custody and thus, two cassettes were marked on 26.5.2001. Thus, altogether, there must have been three cassettes, but actually marked only two cassettes out of which, it appears that one is the cassette which contained the conversation of the accused as well as the complainant that recorded in the open court and the other is the disputed conversation between the accused and the complainant. In fact, the audio cassette containing the conversation between the complainant and PW4, which is produced by the complainant is not seen marked probably due to the reason that the chief examination of PW4 has not been completed. The above facts would show that there is some procedural irregularity and illegality in marking the material object, according to its true contents. 16. In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has filed an application i.e., Crl.M.P.No.17123 of 2002 CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-19-: before the court below on 9.12.2002 with a prayer to issue direction to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Block No.4, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 to compare the voice in the two tape recorders and send his expert opinion to the trial court. In the said petition, it is stated that the conversation between the complainant and the accused has been recorded in the tape recorder and the complainant has produced the same before court. It is also stated that the relevant portions of the statements in the tape recorder were ordered to be produced by the accused in court and it has been recorded in a separate tape recorder as per the order of the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the accused has filed objection, the learned Magistrate, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the complainant, dismissed the said petition. Learned counsel submitted that the above approach of the learned Magistrate is highly arbitrary and illegal and therefore, prayed that after setting aside the above order, a direction may be given to the CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-20-: learned Magistrate to send the cassettes for expert opinion. From the above facts, it appears that the complainant has taken necessary steps towards adducing evidence in support of his allegation against the accused, but the learned Magistrate, without proper application of mind and without hearing the complainant, dismissed his prayer and thereby shut down the valuable evidence, which would have a bearing on the finding of the court on merits. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial court so as to point out the illegal and arbitrary approach of the learned Magistrate. The relevant portion of para 14 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereinbelow for convenience:- “................At the instance of the complainant, the PW4 was examined before court. According to the PW4, the Ext.P1 was issued in favour of the complainant by him and not by the accused, as claimed by the complainant. Of course, the PW4 could not be examined in full. But the complainant got an opportunity to conduct an effective examination of the PW4 (he was examined as a witness from the side of the complainant). Though CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-21-: the PW4 had spoken against the case of the complainant, the learned counsel did not seek permission to declare the PW4 hostile and thereby put questions in the form of cross examination. By way of the examination of the PW4, the complainant had created a doubt to the effect that the Ext.P1 was actually issued by the PW4 to the complainant and not by the accused to the complainant (as averred or alleged in the complaint). However, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that he has no objection in relying on the testimony of the PW4 in toto or to the extent he was examined before court.” (emphasis supplied) But, a reading of the order sheet of the court below which I have already indicated above, would show that the examination of PW4 is not completed as he was absconding and because of that, the learned Magistrate initiated various coercive measures against PW4 as well as the Police Officer concerned. So, it is crystal clear that the observation and finding contained in the above quoted portion of the impugned judgment are absolutely incorrect and contrary to the real facts. It is further relevant to note that the cassette, which is produced by the complainant, claiming that the same contained the conversation between the complainant and PW4, whereby PW4 had made certain CRL.A.NO.796 of 2003 :-22-: admission which would sufficiently prove the case of the complainant, is not seen identified and marked, because of the abscondance of PW4. PW4 is a relative of the accused. Hence, the proof of content of the said cassette through PW4 is absolutely inevitable for