Judgment : 1. This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioners for offence under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing the first petitioner to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and directing payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/-as compensation in default one year simple imprisonment and sentencing the second petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and directing payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, in default six months imprisonment. 2. Petitioners stood trial for offences under section 420 r/w 34 IPC in a case tried in C.C.No.268 of 2002 on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked thirteen exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. 3. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of conviction, sentenced the first petitioner to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in default one year simple imprisonment and sentenced the second petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, in default six months imprisonment. Against such finding, petitioners preferred an appeal in C.A.No.366 of 2002 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Chennai, wherein the documents submitted along with the written arguments of the petitioners before the trial Court had been marked as additional documents. The lower Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. There against, the present revision has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) as also perused the materials available on record. 5. Upon the complaint preferred by PW-1 in the year 2000 alleging wrong doing by petitioners in the year 1989, a case has been registered in Crime No.862 of 2000 for offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC on the file of respondent pursuant to directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation therein, a charge sheet stands filed informing commission of offences under sections 420 r/w 34 IPC. The case was tried in C.C.No.268 of 2002 on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The case was tried in C.C.No.268 of 2002 on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The prosecution case is no more than that the first petitioner, being in need of funds for business purposes, entered into an agreement of sale of his rice mill whereunder he undertook to sell the mill for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs on 06.12.1989 and PW-1/de facto complainant, on such date, paid a sum of Rs.13 lakhs as advance. It is PW1's case that the first petitioner had failed to disclose the fact of his having earlier mortgaged the mill with Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited. The second petitioner has been roped in as accused since she was a witness to the original sale agreement. The Courts below have failed to consider the defence stand that the sale agreement was a sham one. They have failed to properly appreciate the admission of PW-1 that the first petitioner/A1 has executed a promissory note in his favour. The first petitioner has caused a notice on 01.06.2000 informing of having borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs for his business purposes and of having executed and delivered a promissory note along with a cheque and 'a purported sale agreement for the sale of his rice mill'. Therein, the fact of the first petitioner having moved an insolvency petition and of having arrayed the de facto complainant as creditor therein was also informed. A reply notice has been caused by PW-1 wherein though the stand of the first petitioner/A1 is denied, the position that the base transaction of Rs.10 lakhs was a borrowing stands admitted. The original transaction was of the year 1989. The legal notice caused by the first petitioner was of the date 01.06.2000 and the reply caused by the de facto complainant was of the date 14.07.2000. It only is thereafter on 25.10.2000 i.e., after a period of 10 years of the original borrowing, a complaint stands preferred whereupon a direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stands issued. Therefore, it is apparent that what essentially is a civil dispute has been given criminal colour. 6. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. It only is thereafter on 25.10.2000 i.e., after a period of 10 years of the original borrowing, a complaint stands preferred whereupon a direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stands issued. Therefore, it is apparent that what essentially is a civil dispute has been given criminal colour. 6. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.366 of 2002 on 24.11.2009 confirming the judgment of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed in C.C.No.268 of 2002 on 13.12.2002, shall stand set aside. Fine amount, if any, paid by petitioners shall be refunded to them.