Judgment : 1. Challenging the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting A1 for offences u/s. 406 and 417 IPC; A2 and A3 3 for offences u/s. 406 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing A1 to undergo 2 years R.I., fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d 3 months R.I. for offence u/s.406 IPC and 6 months R.I., fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s.417 IPC; sentencing A2 and A3 to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months R.I., the present revisions have been filed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: Informing that the beauty parlour run by them belongs to one A.C.Muthiah Chettiar, that he was willing to sell the same at Rs.10 lakhs, the petitioners/accused induced the de facto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards purchase of the said shop in his name. Believing the words of the accused, the de facto complainant paid Rs.9,00,000/-to the accused on various dates. On coming to know that the petitioners, in collusion, had had executed a sale deed in favour of A1 through the monies paid by him, the de facto preferred a complaint alleging wrong doing by them. Upon of his complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.734 of 2002 on the file of the respondent for offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding and a lease agreement entered into between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, further action in Crime No.734 of 2002 was dropped at the instance of the de facto complaiant. On coming to know that the said documents were created to cheat him, the de facto complainant preferred a further complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.443 of 2003 on the file of the respondent for offences under section 420 and 406 r/w 34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet stands filed informing commission of offences under sections 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC. The case was tried in C.C.No.7455 of 2003 on the file learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked thirteen exhibits. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and one document was marked. 4. The case was tried in C.C.No.7455 of 2003 on the file learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked thirteen exhibits. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and one document was marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment in C.C.No.7455 of 2003 dated 04.09.2008, whilst acquitting all the accused of offence under section 420 IPC, convicted them for the following offences: Accused offence sentence A1 406 IPC 417 IPC 2 years R.I., fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d 3 months R.I. 6 months R.I., fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month R.I. A2 & A3 406 r/w 34 IPC 1 year R.I., fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months R.I. There against, the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.811 of 2009 have preferred an appeal in C.A.No.264 of 2008 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.832 of 2009 has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.265 of 2008 before learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 22.07.2009. Against such finding, the present revisions have been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate (Crl. side). 6. The prosecution case bristles with several infirmities. This Court lists hereunder a few: In case registered at the instance of the de facto complainant in crime No.734 of 2002 on the file of the respondent police, he specifically had stated that he had handed over a sum of Rs.9 lakhs to the second accused towards purchase of the shop and that A1 and A3 had afforded him assurances. In the present case, the de facto complainant has informed of payment of the sum of Rs.9 lakhs in instalments. In the present case, the payment of Rs.9 lakhs is said to have been facilitated by PWs.5 and 6 advancing a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs to the de facto complainant/PW-1. PW-5 is the father-in-law of PW-1 while PW-6 admittedly is PW-1's close friend. There is no proof documentary or otherwise to substantiate that PWs.5 and 6 advanced PW-1 monies. The balance sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs is said to have been paid by a bearer cheque drawn on account of PW-4 and allegedly encashed by A3. The Assistant Manager of the Bank in which PW-4 held an account, examined as PW-7, informed that one Rahman encashed such cheque. The balance sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs is said to have been paid by a bearer cheque drawn on account of PW-4 and allegedly encashed by A3. The Assistant Manager of the Bank in which PW-4 held an account, examined as PW-7, informed that one Rahman encashed such cheque. The signature of the encasher 'Rahman' found in such cheque has not been subjected to any forensic examination for comparison with admitted signatures of A3 towards establishing that it indeed was A3 who encashed the cheque. PW-10, Investigative Officer, has admitted to not examining any of the three accused in the case. He has also informed of not having seen the cheque in a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Exs.P3 and P4 are Memorandum of Understanding and lease deed entered into between the accused and the de facto complainant. It is the defence case that these documents were forced of the first petitioner/accused at the office of the Crime Branch and it was only thereafter that PW-1/de facto complainant sought dropping of proceedings in Crime No.734 of 2002. That certain confabulations took place on 02.10.2002 at the office of the Central Crime Branch is admitted to by PW-9, the then Inspector thereat as also PW-3. Though they would seek to inform a position favourable to the prosecution, PW-1's contention that as the first petitioner/A1 informed him at the office of the Crime Branch on 02.10.2002 that the matter amicably could be settled, whereupon he informed, on 02.10.2002, that no further action need be taken in Crime No.734 of 2002 and that the Memorandum of Understanding and Lease Deed amicably were entered into, the next day 03.10.2002, seems lame. Negotiations by police officers are undesirable and agreements brought about at their instance are unacceptable. There is much more that is poor about the prosecution case. What this Court has observed above would suffice. 7. These Criminal Revisions shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in C.A.Nos.264 and 265 of 2008 on 22.07.2009 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioners by learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.7455 of 2003, on 04.09.2008, shall stand set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by petitioners shall be refunded to them. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.