Madras High Court
The State Rep.By vs Tr.C.Sukumaran on 16 December, 2021
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2014
The State Rep.by
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,Madras
(V & AC Salem
Crime No.3/AC/91) .. Appellant/Complainant
/versus/
1.Tr.C.Sukumaran
Male, aged 61/2014(A1),
Forest Ranger,
Shevoroys South Range,
No.23, Gandhi Nagar,
East Subramaniyapuram,
Salem.
2.Tr.D.R.Venkataraman,
Male, aged 65/2014(A2)
S/o Tr.Rangasamy,
Forester,
Thoppur Section,
Bamboo Estate Division,
Gobichettipalayam, Periyar District. .. Respondents/Accused
(A-1 & A-2)
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. praying
to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused[A-1 & A-2]
passed in Special Calendar Case No.33/95 dated 22.10.2013 by the Court of
the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and convict the
respondents/accused [A-1 & A-2] for the offences framed against them in
the interest of justice.
For Appellant ... Mr. C.E.Pratap,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For respondents ... Mr.V.R.Annagandhi for R1
... Mr. K.Gandhikumar
for R2
-------
JUDGMENT
Challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special
Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, in Spl.C.C.No.33 of 1995, dated
22.10.2013, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State.
2.Respondents 1 and 2 are the accused in the above said
Spl.C.C.No.33 of 1995 and they stood charged for the following offences:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
Rank of the Accused Charges framed
First Accused Under Sections 120-B r/w 167, 477-A,
420, 409 IPC and r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)
and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and 167, 477-A, 420 (2 counts)
409 IPC and r/w Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
Second Accused Under Sections 120-B r/w 167, 477-A,
420, 409 IPC and r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)
and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and 167, 477-A, 420 409 IPC
and r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
After ful-fledged trial, by a judgment dated 22.10.2013, the trial Court
acquitted both the accused. Against the order of acquittal, the present
criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.
3.Pending the appeal, the first respondent/A1 died and to that effect, a
memo along with death certificate of the first accused has been filed by the
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/A1. Learned Government
Advocate(crl.side) also confirmed the same. In view of the above, this
Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated as against the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
respondent/A1.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
A1[Tr.C.Sukumaran], in this case, was working as a Forest Ranger in
Shevaroys, South Range, Salem District. A2 was working as a Forester,
Thoppur Section in Shevaroys South Range. A work of raising of “40
Hectares Managoundamalai Re-afforestation of Degraded Forests
Plantation” and planting 300 more tamarind seedlings to the estimated value
of Rs.64,500/- for the year 1989-90, was entrusted with a Contractor
[PW-9] Govindarajan by the first accused for clear felling and uprootal in 40
hectares besides planting 300 plants etc. PW-2 [Tr.G.Kumaravelu], who
was working as a District Forest Officer, on the recommendation of the A1,
sanctioned a sum of Rs.64,500/- on 07.06.1989 for 40 hectares of
Managoundamalai Re-afforestation of degraded Forest Plantation and
planting 300 tamarind seedlings etc. Thereafter, an agreement was entered
with PW-9 [Tr.N.Govindaraj] by A1, for execution of the work and the said
work was completed. On completion of the work, the Contractor had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
received payments of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- for two times. Thereafter,
an inspection was conducted by PW-6 [Tr.Sampath Kumar, Assistant
Conservator of Forest, Forest Protection Squad Salem] on 24.01.1990,
25.01.1990 and 27.01.1990 and found that there is some discrepancy in
execution of the work that, out of 38,000 sanctioned seedlings, 15497
seedlings; 5934 trenches, instead of 30,000 trenches; and 259 tree guards
were constructed, instead of 300 and in 89 tree guards, tamarind were not
planted as entered in the M-Book. Then a preliminary enquiry was
conducted by the Department, based on that, a First Information Report was
registered against A1 and A2 for the above said offences. After obtaining
prior sanction to prosecute the accused, the investigation of the case was
entrusted to PW-23[Tr.L.Panneerselvam, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Salem Vigilance and Anti Corruption. He recorded the statements of the
witnesses and laid final report before the trial Court stating both the accused
1 and 2 have entered into a criminal conspiracy for the commission of
offence by framing incorrect officials records in the capacity of the public
servants, falsification of records, cheating, criminal breach of trust to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
tune of Rs.23,420-10, also committed the offence of criminal misconduct by
the public servants by corrupt or illegal means and obtained pecuniary
advantage for themselves by abusing their official position.
5.Based on the materials, the Trial Court framed charges for the
offences under Sections 120-B r/w 167, 477-A, 420, 409 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against both the accused.
The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
on the side of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses were examined and
38 documents were exhibited. On the side of the accused, one exhibit was
marked as Ex.D1.
6. Out of 23 witnesses examined, PW-1 [Tr.Harikrishnan, Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest] issued sanctioning order to prosecute the
accused. P.W.2 [Tr.G.Kumaravelu], District Forest Officer, Salem, accepted
the running account bills and issuance of cheque to the contractor. PW-3
[Tr.M.Madhesan] Junior Drafting Officer, had verified and submitted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
running account bills to the sanctioning authority for perusal. PW-4
[Tr.S.Kamalakannan] Assistant Drafting Officer of District Forest Office,
Salem, had issued verified and issued a certificate for the survey sketch
prepared by the A2 and the same was verified by A1. PW-5[Tr.Vikraman]
Accountant at District Forest Office, Salem, maintained the fund application
register and he had issued cheques, based on the order passed by PW-2 and
handed over to the contractor through A2. PW-6 [Tr.Sampath
Kumar]Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Protection Squad Salem had
inspected the work, as per the order of the Conservator of Forest Salem
Circle, dated 22.12.1989 and submitted his report regarding deficiency of
work to the District Forest Officer. PW-7 [Tr.Soundarajan] Forester of
Shevaroys South Circle, accompanied with PW-6 [Assistant Conservator of
Forest] at the time of inspection, had prepared re-survey report and signed
by him. PW-8,[Tr.Balaji] District Forest Officer, had issued a cheque for a
sum of Rs.18,677/-, after deducting a sum of Rs.382/- towards income tax to
the Contractor for the execution of the alleged work. Further, he issued an
account payee cheque to PW-9 [Tr.Govindaraju] Contractor, who executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
the work, he turned hostile. PW-10 [Tr.Palanisamy] Assistant, in the Office
of the Forest Ranger, South Range, Salem, had given an application for
registration of the contractor and the same was filled up by him. PW-
11[Tr.Chinnasamy], an account holder at Indian Overseas Bank,
Oddampatty branch had introduced him for opening the account.
7.PW-12 [Tr.Jayavel] Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Oddampatty
Bank, Dharmapuri, had opened the current account in the name of the
contractor and the said cheque was deposited for collection and the same
was closed after encashing the amount. PW-13 [Tr.Ponnaiyah] Assistant
Conservator of Forest had inspected the M-Book entries made by A1. PW-
14 [Tr.Shanmugam] Forest Ranger Shevaroys, South Range, Salem,
checked the measurement entries made by A1. PW-15 [Tr.Babyrani] Junior
Assistant of Forest Office, Salem had checked and scrutiny of the weekly
diary of Forest Ranger and Foresters and he handed over the copies of the
weekly diaries of A2 to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office. PW-16 to
PW-19 are the workers worked under the Contractor on daily wages at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
relevant point of time. PW-20 [Tr.Selvaraj] Junior Drafts Man, District
Forest Office, Salem, had compared the estimate along with sketch
submitted by A1. PW-21[Tr.Balanathan] Conservator of Forest, Salem
Circle, had ordered inspection to be conducted by PW-6. PW-22
[Tr.Elumalai] Forest Watcher Shevaroys South Range, Salem, had inspected
the work along with the Forest Guard. PW-23[Tr.Panneerselvam] Inspector
of Police, V & AC, Salem has given evidence, based on the records, since
the original investigating officer of this case Tr.Krishnasamy, expired during
trial.
8.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have denied the same as false. However,
they did not choose to examine any witness, but one document was marked
on their side.
9.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted
all the accused, in respect of the charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
this judgment. Aggrieved against the acquittal of the accused, the present
Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State. Pending the appeal, the first
accused/1st respondent died and the appeal survives only against the second
accused alone.
10.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the
appellant submitted that from the evidences of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-13, it
could be seen that A1 made false entries in the M-Book and Running
Account Bill as if PW-13 measured his work for claiming excess amount.
The trial Court has not properly scrutinized the evidence of PW-16 to
PW-19. The evidence of PW-10 clearly proved that the contractor opened an
account in his name at the instance of the A1 and after encashing the cheque
amount, his account has been closed. The above evidence is very clearly
proves the fact that PW-9 Contractor was not a real contractor. The accused
1 and 2 miserably mislead the sanctioning authority by submitting M Book
and Running Account Bill with false and fabricated measurements without
actually executing any excess work as claimed by A1 and A2 and thereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
A1 and A2 forged the records and misappropriated the amount under their
control. The trial Court without considering the same acquitted the accused.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/A2
submitted that the trial Court, considering all the evidence, has rightly come
to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents/accused and there is no
reason to interfere with the order of acquittal.
12.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side
and perused the materials available on records carefully.
13.The first accused died, pending appeal and to that effect, death
certificate of the first accused along with the memo filed. In view of the
above, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated as against the first
accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
14.So far as the A2 is concerned, he was working as a Forester. All
the allegations are made only against the first accused alone. The work was
entrusted for execution with PW-9 [Contractor], who turned hostile and A1
alone maintained M-book and submitted the Running Account Bill to PW-2
for sanctioning the amount. Sofar as A2 is concerned, the allegation is that
he conspired along with A1, thereby he committed the above said offence.
However, in the cross examination of PW-2, he clearly stated that A2 has
no role for introducing PW-9 to PW-2. That apart, PW-2 has not received
any complaint against A2 and A2 has no role in disbursement of amount.
That apart, absolutely there is no evidence available on record to show that
A2 has conspired with A1 and committed the above said offences.
15. It is settled principal of law that, in an order of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the fundamental
principle of criminal justice delivery system is that, every person, accused of
committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless his guilt is
proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly, if the accused has secured an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
order of acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is re-affirmed and
strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
16. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or
perversity in the judgment of the trial Court and there is no reason to
interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the
appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of
the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.33 of 1995 dated 22.10.2013 is hereby
confirmed.
16.12.2021
Index: Yes/ No
ari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
To
1. The Special Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Salem.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
ari
Crl.A.No.158 of 2014
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
