RAJKUMAR JOHN vs STATE BY

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 676 of 2017
CNR: {HCMA011584022017}
Rajkumar John
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. State By
Sub Inspector Of Police,
District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram
(Crime No.52 of 2009).
2. Daniel Dhanapal
3. Deboral
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram dated 27.07.2016 in C.A.No.25 of
2015 and allow the appeal.
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Baskaran
For Respondent(s): Ms.Sharada Vivek
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.G.Anandha Rangan for R2 and R3
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.
__________
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
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:
__________
Page No.2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
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.
__________
Page No.3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
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:
__________
Page No.4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
“
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;
__________
Page No.5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
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.
__________
Page No.6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
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.
__________
Page No.7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )

CRL A No. 676 of 2017
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
( drm )
CRL A No. 676 of 2017
15-10-2026
__________
Page No.8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )