Madras High Court

Manthan vs The State Rep. By on 21 December, 2021

                                                                            Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 21.12.2021

                                                          CORAM :

                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                             Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

                     Manthan                                       ... Petitioner
                                                              (in Crl.R.C. Nos.1010 & 1013 of 2014)

                     Shanmugam                                     ... Petitioner
                                                              (in Crl.R.C. Nos.1011 & 1012 of 2014)

                                                            Versus
                     The State rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     CCIW, Chengai East.                          ... Respondent

(Crime No.1 of 2002) (in all cases)

Prayer in all cases: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 (1) r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment in Crl.A. Nos.20, 21, 19 & 18 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Sessions Court-II, Kancheepuram dated 15.09.2014 confirming conviction in the judgment in C.C. Nos.88 & 87 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee dated 04.04.2005.

For Petitioners in all cases : Mr.D.J.Venkatesan

For Respondent in all cases : Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate (Crl.side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

COMMON ORDER

These four Criminal Revisions are connected to each other and

therefore, taken up for common disposal.

2.On 25.05.2001, one Khader Moideen, the Special Officer, who

was appointed in respect of the Kollachery Industrial Stone Quarry

Co-operative Society, lodged a complaint before the CCIW, CID, Chengai

East on 25.05.2001.

3.The gist of the complaint is that the 1st accused, namely

Shanmugam, who was the Cashier of the Society, the 2 nd accused

Abdulgani, who was the Secretary of the Society and Manthan, who was

the President of the Society, have colluded with each other and

misappropriated totally a sum of Rs.4,33,500.70. Upon receipt of the

complaint, the Inspector of Police, CCIW, CID, Chengai East registered a

case in Crime No.1 of 2002 under Sections 408 IPC r/w. 109 and 34 IPC

on 09.04.2012. One Mr.Balakrishnan, the Inspector of Police took up the

case for investigation and in the course of the investigation, he found that

the allegations related to two Co-operative Societies, namely, Kollachery

Harijana Industrial Co-operative Society and Kollachery Industrial Stone https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

Quarry Co-operative Society and therefore, he filed two final reports

proposing three accused guilty of charges under Sections 408 r/w. 109 and

34 IPC. In respect of Kollachery Harijana Industrial Co-operative Society,

the case was taken on file as C.C. No.87 of 2003 and in respect of

Kollachery Industrial Stone Quarry Co-operative Society, the case was

taken on file as C.C. No.88 of 2003. By a judgment dated 04.04.2005, the

Trial Court convicted all the three accused for the offence under Section

408 r/w.34 I.P.C., imposing rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine

of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months

simple imprisonment and for the offence of 408 r/w.109 I.P.C., two years

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo six

months simple imprisonment. All the accused preferred appeals in C.A.

Nos.18 and 20 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge,

Kancheepuram and by a judgment dated 15.09.2014, confirmed the

findings in respect of all three accused and imposed only a fine on the

second accused considering the fact that he has repaid the amounts and as

far as the 1st and 3rd accused are concerned, it convicted them for the

offence under Section 408 r/w. 34 I.P.C. alone and reduced the

imprisonment from two years to six months. As against the said judgment,

the 1st accused in the case, has preferred Crl.R.C. No.1011 of 2014. As https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.88 of 2003 and

C.A. No.20 of 2011, the 3rd accused in the same case has preferred Crl.R.C.

No.1010 of 2014. Similarly, the 1st accused has preferred Crl.R.C. No.1012

of 2014, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.87

of 2003 and C.A. No.19 of 2011 and the 3rd accused in the same case

Manthan has preferred Crl.R.C. No.1013 of 2014.

A. CC No. 87 of 2003 :

4.As far as C.C. No.87 of 2003 is concerned, since the accused

had denied the charges and stood trial, the prosecution examined one

Somasundaram, Special Registrar, Kancheepuram as P.W.1, who deposed

the factum regarding the complaint of the Special Officer to the

Superintendent of Police, one Chellakavi, Special Registrar,

Kancheepuram as P.W.2, who deposed about the conduct of enquiry, one

Kadar Moideen, the Special Officer as P.W.3, who deposed about the

forwarding of complaint, one V.Udhayakumar, Enquiry Officer as P.W.4,

who submitted the 81 enquiry report and one Tamilarasi as P.W.5, who

deposed evidence regarding the registration of F.I.R. and one Balakrishnan

as P.W.6, the Sub Inspector and the Investigating Officer in the case, who

filed charge sheet against the accused persons. On behalf of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

prosecution, Exs.P1 to P43 were marked.

5.Upon questioning with reference to the evidence let in against

the accused and the incriminating circumstances, all the accused denied the

same as false evidence. No evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.

6.Under these circumstances, the Trial Court, proceeded to hear

the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and by the judgment

dated 04.04.2005, convicted the first and second accused for the offence

under Section 408 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and the third accused the offence under

section 408 r/w. 109 I.P.C. and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by

the same, all the accused preferred seperate appeals. and after appraising

the evidence on record, the appellate court, in respect of accused Nos.1 and

3, confirmed the conviction, however, reduced the imprisonment to six

months from that of two years. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and

3 have preferred the revision cases as mentioned above before this Court.

7.Mr.D.J.Venkatesan, the learned counsel for the accused/ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

petitioners would submit that there are several flaws in the 81 enquiry

report and without conducting any investigation whatsoever, by merely

relying upon the evidence of Co-operative Society's officials inquiry alone,

the Investigating Officer had conducted tabletop investigation and

therefore, the entire findings of the Trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

8.On the other hand, Mr.C.Baskaran, learned Government

Advocate (Crl. side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution submitted that

in these cases, apart from the Section - 81 inquiry report, the relevant

documents evidencing the misappropriation of the amounts, were produced

before the Trial Court as Exs.P1 to P.43 and the prosecution has proved

the offence beyond any doubt. As a matter of fact, the second petitioner

had also paid the amounts misappropriated by them and which would also

let in further credence to the prosecution case and therefore, he would

submit that these are not the cases for an interference by exercise of

revisional jurisdiction.

9.I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 to 1013 of 2014

sides. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, these

are the cases, which are borne out of records and the relevant documentary

evidences were produced before the Trial Court and the Courts below have

considered the same in detail and have come to the conclusion that the

petitioners have misappropriated the amount. In that view of the matter, I

am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the guilt by the Trial Court

as well as the Lower Appellate Court.

B. CC. No. 88 of 2003:

10.As far as C.C. No.88 of 2003 is concerned, since the accused