TMI Blog1956 (9) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere convicted or acquitted by the Sessions Judge, as their cases are not before us. The High Court set aside the acquittal of Swamirathnam and convicted him for the offence of conspiracy and the offence of cheating Ramaswami Mudaliar, P. W. 91, whO was examined at the trial as an approver. It also set aside the acquittal of Abu Bucker of the offence of cheating under charge No. 11 and convicted him of that offence. 2. Both the courts below, relying on the oral and documentary evidence in the case, held it as a fact that there had been a conspiracy during the years 1945-48 to cheat members of the public between some of the accused and the approvers Ramaswami Mudaliar and Vellayam Pillai examined as P. Ws. 91 and 61 respectively. The method adopted for cheating was to persuade such members of the public, as could be persuaded, to part with their money to purchase counterfeit ₹ 5 currency notes at half their face value and after having obtained their money to decamp with it. When a member of the public handed over his money, at a certain stage, one of the conspirators pretending to be a Police Officer would arrest the man who had the box containing their money and take him aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant does not entirely depend upon their evidence. The main evidence against this appellant is that of Krishnaswami Naicker, P. W. 47, the victim of the cheating, who cannot possibly be described as an accomplice. The judgment of the courts below clearly show that the evidence of Krishnaswami Naicker was examined with great care and no part of his evidence has been placed before us which would suggest to us that the courts below were unreasonable in relying upon Krishnaswami Naicker's evidence. The offence of cheating this individual as against this appellant has, therefore, been amply proved. It was conceded before the High Court by the Advocates for the appellants, that if a specific instance of cheating was proved beyond doubt against any of the accused that would furnish the best corroboration of the offence of conspiracy because conspiracy was the root and the specific instances were the fruit. The charge of cheating Krishnaswami Naicker having been proved against this appellant, ample corroboration of the evidence of the approver Ramaswami Mudaliar, P. W. 91, that this appellant participated in the conspiracy to cheat the members of the public is furnished ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable doubt. So far as the evidence of the approver is concerned, it fully establishes the offence of conspiracy under charge No. 1 framed against this appellant. The evidence of the approver shows that he was induced to part with a considerable sum of money in the hope that he would get counterfeit currency notes double that value -- a hope which never materialised. Ramaswami Mudaliar's evidence shows that he was becoming restless as he told Abu Bucker that he had incurred much loss in the counterfeit notes business and the creditors were worrying him and that he should recoup his loss and correspondence passed between him and Abu Bucker. The documents filed in this case show that during the months of October to December, 1946. Abu Bucker wrote to Ramaswami Mudaliar from Colombo. Ex. P. 301 written by Abu Bucker to Ramaswami Mudaliar is dated the 23rd of December, 1946. It makes interesting reading and, in our opinion, corroborates Ramaswami Mudaliar. In this letter, Abu Bucker accepted the charge which Ramaswami Mudaliar had made against him that he had deceived the latter. Abu Bucker expresses the hope that he would relieve Ramaswami Mudaliar of his monetary difficultie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablishes that more money should be obtained from Ramaswami Mudaliar on the execution of a promissory note. Although the letter speaks of getting rupees ten or rupees fifteen more in addition to rupees thirty paid, it is not disputed that these figures referred to ₹ 10,000 or ₹ 15,000 and ₹ 30,000. The appellant Swamirathnam was questioned by the Sessions Judge concerning this exhibit and he admitted that this letter was in connection with the four promissory notes written by him and executed by Abu Bucker about which Ramaswami Mudaliar had spoken. Ex. 91 dated the 14th of November, 1946 is a letter from Abu Bucker to accused No. 11, U. K. Krishnaswami Chettiar written from Colombo. In this letter Abu Bucker speaks of the trade not being one of selling in the shandy or in the shop and that Krishnaswami Chettiar and the likes of him do not know how and when to talk and their policy was to talk to each person in a different manner and to conduct themselves in such a way as not to betray the one to the other and that this was a trade secret, and that reliance was entirely placed upon Swamirathnam as conditions stood. Exs. P.160 and P.161 dated the 13th of November ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that he would abide by his word with respect to the money already paid by the approver. He warns the approver against giving any bribe to anyone, although this had been done previously. It is not understood how the question of giving bribe with respect to an innocent transaction arises. The approver, however, has clearly stated in his evidence that accused No. 6, Swami Shanmugam had told him that if a large bribe was paid to District Superintendent of Police, Ramaswami Mudaliar could be saved and that ₹ 7,000 would have to be paid. He asked accused No. 10, Kumaravel Chettiar to pay ₹ 7,000 to accused No. 6, Swami Shanmugam. Four days later accused No. 6 Swami Shanmugam told him that the District Superintendent of Police had said that the bribe was not sufficient and wanted ₹ 5,000 more. Ramaswami Mudaliar sent ₹ 5,000 through accused No. 7, Guru alias Mowna Guru and that subsequently accused No. 6, Swami Shanmugam had received monies on various occasions from him amounting to ₹ 10,000 for paying bribe. It may be mentioned that this story of bribe, spoken to by the approver, Ramaswami Mudaliar was in connection with the counterfeit notes transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndi may hove been the same, the several instances of cheating were not part of the same transaction. Reliance was placed on the case of Sharpurji Sorabji v. Emperor. AIR 1936 Bom 154 (A) and on the case of Choragudi Venkatadari In re ILR 33 Mad 592 (B). These cases are not in point. In the Bombay case no charge of conspiracy had been framed and the decision in the Madras case was given before Section 120-B, was introduced into the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the instances of cheating were in pursuance of the conspiracy and were therefore parts of the same transaction. 8. The appellant Abu Bucker had been found guilty of the offence of conspiracy under charge No. 1 by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. There was ample evidence on the record to justify this conviction and we have been unable to find any reasonable ground for suspecting that the conviction was unjustified. So far as the charge for the specific offence of cheating under charge No. 11 is concerned, although he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, we think, that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting him of the offence under this charge. It is unnecessary to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
