Madras High Court
The Managing Director/Joint ... vs The State Rep By on 16 June, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 16.06.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 25.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428, 5433, 5436 & 5440 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.3134, 3135, 3136 & 3138 of 2021
The Managing Director/Joint Registrar,
Tiruchirappalli District Central Cooperative Bank Limited,
No.1, Fort Station Road,
Tiruchirapalli. ... Petitioner (In all petitions)
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Thiruchirappalli.
(Ref.Crime No.7 of 2009) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
(In all petitions)
nd
2.Dhanabal ... 2 Respondent/Defacto Complainant
(In all petitions)
Common Prayer:Criminal Original Petition are filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to expunge the observation/direction made in paragraph 24 of the
judgment passed in C.C.No.159/2010, paragraph 25 of the judgment passed
in C.C.No.161/2010, paragraph 24 of the judgment passed in C.C.No.
162/2010 & paragraph 23 of the judgment passed in C.C.No.160/2010 by
the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, dated 01.09.2017, so far as
relating to pay monetary benefits and service benefits to the second
respondent by the employer namely, Management of the Tiruchirappalli
District Central Cooperative Bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
(In all petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbu Nithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to expunge the
observation/direction made in paragraph 24 of the judgment passed in
C.C.No.159/2010, paragraph 25 of the judgment passed in C.C.No.
161/2010, paragraph 24 of the judgment passed in C.C.No.162/2010 &
paragraph 23 of the judgment passed in C.C.No.160/2010 by the Judicial
Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, dated 01.09.2017, so far as relating to
pay monetary benefits and service benefits to the second respondent by the
employer namely, Management of the Tiruchirappalli District Central
Cooperative Bank.
2.Since a common question of law and facts arose in all these
petitions, all the four petitions were heard together and a common judgment
was passed.
3. Since the second respondent has been ordered to remove from the
service on 07.07.2009, no notice was served to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
4. Case of the prosecution:-
(i) The accused persons in all the cases committed offences under
Sections 408, 467, 468, 409, 477 (A), 418 and 204 IPC. So, the case of the
prosecution in all the cases is that the accused persons were employees of
Central Co-operative Society, Sri Rangam Branch, Trichy District. During
the course of business transaction, the accused persons were alleged to have
fabricated the documents by falsifying the records of the respective several
bank accounts of the customers and thereby, they misappropriated the funds
from the several bank accounts of the customers.
(ii) On the basis of the complaint, the Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies had ordered to conduct enquiry under Section 81 of
the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. One Mr.Palanivelu, the
Co-operative Sub-Registrar was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Deputy
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies.
(iii) On the basis of the enquiry report, a complaint has been lodged
in all the cases before the Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime
Investigation Wing, Trichirappalli, against the second respondent herein and
one Mr.Senthil. So, based upon the complaint, a case in Crime No.7 of
2009 was registered. After completing the investigation, final report was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichirappalli, which
was taken on file in C.C.Nos.159 of 2010, 160 of 2010, 161 of 2010 & 162
of 2010.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 8
witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked.
6. The second accused, namely, Mr.Senthil died, during the trial
proceedings. At the conclusion of trial, the second respondent was found
guilty for the offences under Sections 408, 467, 468, 409, 477 (A), 418 and
204 IPC. But, however, the Trial Court, chose to give the benefit under the
provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, on the basis of the report
submitted by Probation Officer, Trichy District. So, on that basis, the Trial
Court extended the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act. He was ordered to keep the behaviour of good conduct for 1 year from
the date of judgment and he was also placed under the supervision of
Probation Officer. Not stopping with that, by exercising the power under
Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, service benefits as well as the
monetary benefit have also been granted to the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
7. These Criminal Original Petitions are filed challenging this portion
of the order of the Trial Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, granting benefit
under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, is completely
misplaced, having found that the second respondent indulged in fabricating
the documents and misappropriated the amount, it is beyond the jurisdiction
of the Trial Court. The reason being that based upon the departmental
enquiry, the accused was dismissed from service on 07.07.2009 itself, by
proceedings No.1908/08-09 (o.3) v.10.
10. It appears that the above said dismissal order has not been
brought to the notice of the Trial Court during the course of trial
proceedings or by the second respondent. Since he has been dismissed from
the service, long before the date of trial and judgment, the second
respondent ought to have approached the Tribunal for setting aside the
dismissal order. But, he has not availed that opportunity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
11. So, the observation of the Trial Court that extending the monetary
benefits and service benefits under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, to the second respondent, has become infructuous. So, the observation
is liable to be deleted or expunged from the judgment.
12. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.06.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.III,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Thiruchirappalli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428 and batch of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5428, 5433, 5436 & 5440 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.3134, 3135, 3136 & 3138 of 2021
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
