w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Subba Reddy Charities rep. by Managing Trustee, A.J. Yuvaraj Reddy v/s A. Sankaranarayan & Another

    Crl.O.P. No. 10580 of 2017 in Crl.A. SR. 38170 of 2016
    Decided On, 04 October 2017
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
    For the Petitioner: In Person. For the Respondents: T.R. Ravi for M. Muthappan, Advocate.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant special leave to prefer appeal from the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in C.C.No.32 of 2012 dated 26.02.2012.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking grant of special leave to prefer an appeal from the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in C.C.No.32 of 2012 dated 26.02.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondents will be referred to as complainant and accused.

3. The complainant is the appellant before this Court. The complainant initiated a private prosecution in C.C.No.32 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur against Jaithoon Bi [A1], Shankara Narayanan [A2] and Venkatachalapathi [A3] for offences under Sections 378, 379, 405, 406, 410, 411, 414, 420, 425, 441, 463, 464, 470, 471 and 505 IPC. The complaint was taken on file and after preliminary examination of the witness produced by the complainant, charges for offences under Sections 379, 406 and 420 IPC were framed against the three accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

4. On the side of the complainant, one witness was examined and nine exhibits were marked. On behalf of the accused, one witness was examined and six exhibits were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court, by judgment dated 26.02.2016 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 acquitted the accused, aggrieved by which, the complainant is before this Court seeking special leave to appeal.

5. Heard Mr.Yuvaraj Reddy party-in-person/complainant himself and Mr.T.R.Ravi, learned counsel for Shankara Narayanan [A2] and Venkatachalapathi [A3]. It is reported that Jaithoon Bi [A1] died on 29.05.2012 and therefore, the prosecution against her stood abated.

6. Mr.Yuvaraj Reddy, the party-in-person submitted that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and had erroneously acquitted the accused, despite the fact that the accused had swindled the Trust properties to their own advantage. He also submitted that the accused had sold the Trust properties in violation of the Scheme Decree in C.S.No.247 of 1961.

7. Per contra, Mr.Ravi, learned counsel for the accused refuted the allegations.

8. The short point that has to be seen is, whether this is a fit case to grant leave to the complainant to appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.

9. It is trite law that while dealing with an application for leave to appeal, this Court should see whether there are prima facie materials warranting interference. To understand the case of the complainant, it may be necessary to briefly state the facts.

[a] Admittedly, the complainant, Shankara Narayanan [A2] and Venkatachalapathi [A3] were Trustees of Subba Reddy Trust. It is alleged by the complainant that Shankara Narayanan [A2] and Venkatachalapathi [A3] had sold the property at No.32, MKN Street, Alandur that was belonging to the Trust on 29.07.1992 to Jaithoon Bi [A1] in violation of the Scheme Decree in C.S.No.180 of 1948 and C.S.No.247 of 1961. However, on a cursory reading of the case, it is apparent that Shankara Narayanan [A2] and Venkatachalapathi [A3] had sold the property pursuant to a decree in O.S.No.1348 of 1982 passed by the District Munsif, Poonamallee and not on their own accord. In fact, the complainant himself has marked the judgment in O.S.No.1348 of 1982 as Ex.P7.

[b] That apart, it has been admitted by the complainant that, on 01.10.1987, a resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees to sell certain properties, to which, the complainant was a signatory. Therefore, the complainant cannot be heard to complain that the Court Trustees had sold the property in violation of law. That apart, the complainant had failed to even file the orders of the Scheme Decree in C.S.No.180 of 1948 and C.S.No.247 of 1961 to show that there was a prohibition for the sale of the property. In fact, the complainant had filed an application in the High Court against the Court Trustees alleging that they had sold the said property in violation of the Scheme Decree. The applications in A.Nos.1291/2006, 2120/2005, 2118/2006, 4387/2006, 3935/2007 and 557/2009 were dismissed by this Court on 06.04.2010 after passing strictures against the complainant, which are as follows:

"If the sale of the property to Joseph is a breach of trust, the first plaintiff is equally guilty of it, since he had not only executed a deed of ratification, but also challenged the sale before Court and withdrew the challenge late. A person who is guilty of such a conduct, is not entitled to seek the removal of the other 2 trustees, for and act, which he himself had ratified. What is worse is the fact that (i) the execution of the deed of ratification (ii) the filing of the application before the Poonamallee Court and (iii) t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he withdrawal of the application are not even mentioned in the plaint in C.S.No.37 of 2007. Therefore, the first plaintiff cannot be said to be a person who has a genuine concern and a bona fide interest in the proper administration and management of the Trust in question....." The trial Court had acquitted the accused taking all these factors into consideration by a well reasoned judgment, which does not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the Special Leave application stands dismissed. Connected Crl.A.SR.No.38170 of 2016 is closed.
O R