Appeal
G.Moorthy/the appellant herein is the second accused in C.C.No.18 of 2003 tried by the IX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, for CBI cases, Chennai. The accused/A2 was found guilty of offence under Section 120 B r/w 420 of I.P.C and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default for payment of fine to undergo R.I for period of three months, convicted under Section 420 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for period of one year and imposed fine of Rs.2000/- and in default for payment of fine to undergo R.I for period of three months. The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone if any ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
23. In the above said circumstances, though the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had vehemently argued that, mere suspicion is not sufficient to convict the appellant and there must be a concrete unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences, this Court finds that the evidence discussed above as well as the reasoning given by the trial Court in paragraph Nos. 48 to 50 in its judgment are sufficient to hold that it is not mere suspicion but concrete evidence prove the guilty of the accused. The circumstances and chain of evidence which indicates the accused/appellant alone is the person responsible for collecting the refund order to a tune of Rs.3,58,604/- and encashed it through opening accounts in different name so that, the trail of ill-gotten money gets erased. However, the hand writing expert opinion and the person in whose name the account opened have exposed the appellant. The testimony of Jayapal (P.W.10) and the persons who stayed in the addresses where the refund order got redirected had exposed the scheme of conspiracy and design of the appellant, who had successfully cheated the Income Tax Department by inducing the officials to issue refund order, though there was no excess TDS collected from the assessee
Party
G.Moorthy vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch – Crl.A.No.204 of 2010 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4114 & 4115 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1032308
