Madras High Court
K.Ravidranath vs State Represented By on 12 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Revision Case No.623 of 2017
K.Ravidranath
...Petitioner
Versus
State represented by:
Inspector of Police,
C.C.I.W., C.I.D.
Vellore.
(Crime No.1 of 2003)
... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed against
the petitioner in C.A.No.248 of 2011 on the file of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vellore dated 10.08.2016 by confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore dated
21.10.2011 in C.C.No.300 of 2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
1/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the
Judgement of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore dated 10.08.2016 made in C.A.No.248 of 2011 confirming the
Judgement passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - II Vellore in
C.C.No. 300 of 2007 dated 21.10.2011.
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II Vellore, convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Section 408 of IPC and sentenced to two
years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) in default
to suffer 15 days R.I, convicted for the offence under 477 (A) of IPC and
sentenced to two years R.I with fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees Thousand only)
and default to suffer 15 days R.I. The Appellate Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as
Secretary in Valathur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank between the
period from 23.09.1978 to 11.07.2001, and as the secretary he was
authorized to maintain accounts and safeguard all the records to the Bank.
2/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
The petitioner was prosecuted along with one A.Ramachandran, President
of the said Bank and one Boopathy, the Assistant Secretary whose duty
according to the prosecution was to open ledger sheets for collecting Loan
repayments, Membership Contributions and maintain Disposal Register
and Day Book and Cash Register. The charge as against all the accused
was that they committed criminal breach of trust and falsification of
accounts by collecting the principal and interest of the loan advanced and
gave credit only in the loan ledger did not give receipts to the members and
did not bring the receipt of the payment in the other relevant ledgers of the
bank namely cash chitta and Day Book. According to the prosecution, the
accused misappropriated the loan amount repaid by some of the members
who were examined as prosecution witnesses and the total amount
misappropriated was to the tune of Rs.2,13,380/- (Rupees |Two lakhs
Thirteen Thousand Three hundred and Eighty only).
4.The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses found that the allegation as against the petitioner
with regard to misappropriation of the loan amount said to have been
repaid by witnesses P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.10 were proved. The
learned Magistrate found that the accused had committed misappropriation
3/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
to the tune of Rs.2,00,435/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Four Hundred and Thirty
Five only).
5.The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had committed
misappropriation to the tune of Rs.960/- in respect of the loan amount of
P.W.5, Rs.42,940/- dated 30.04.1999, Rs.14,740/- dated 30.04.1999,
Rs.6,605/- dated 15.09.1999, Rs.22,555/- dated 30.06.1999 and
Rs.22,500/- dated 30.06.1999, in respect of the loan amount said to have
been repaid by P.W.8 and Rs.40,300/- in respect of the loan amount said to
have been repaid by P.W.7 and Rs.10,230/- dated 31.05.1999, Rs.15,335/-
dated 31.05.1999 and Rs.24,270/- dated 31.05.1999, in respect of loan
repaid by P.W.10. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court.
6.Heard Mr.S.Sairaman, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
7.Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend
that the entire prosecution is misconceived and a series of cases were filed
against the petitioner and most of the cases ended in acquittal before the
Trial Court and in some of the cases before this Court on the ground that
4/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
the prosecution has not produced certain vital Registers and Books of
Accounts pertaining to the loans given to the witnesses and in the absence
of which misappropriation cannot be said to have been proved. He further
contended that the prosecutions were triggered pursuant to the surprise
inspection made by P.W.2 one Thomas who noticed certain lapses in the
maintenance of Registers of the Bank and on his special report dated
11.06.2001 P.W.3 Mr.Ranganathan, appointed P.W.1-Thandavamoorthy, as
Enquiry officer, under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act. P.W.18
could not complete the enquiry since he fell sick and P.W.13-Investigating
Officer conducted the enquiry and he found that the accused committed
misappropriation. Thereafter, on the complaint given by P.W.1, a FIR was
registered in Crime No.1 of 2003 on 05.01.2003. The petitioner was
arrested on 05.01.2003 and was in custody till 08.03.2003. Based on the
investigation conducted pursuant to the said FIR, several Final Reports
were filed by the respondent herein. The allegation in the Final Report in
the instant case as stated earlier is that the petitioner along with thesaid
Ramachandran and Boopathy misappropriated Rs.2,13,380/- (Rupees |Two
lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three hundred and Eighty only).
5/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
8.The learned counsel would further submit that the learned
Magistrate erred in believing the evidence of hostile witnesses namely
P.W.5 and P.W.10. The learned Magistrate had independently recorded the
details found in the files relating to the loan obtained by these two
witnesses and rendered the finding of the effect that misappropriation was
committed to the loan amount pertaining to these two witnesses. The
learned counsel further submitted that even P.W.8-Damodaran who is
alleged to have taken five loans does not speak about the five loans. In fact
in his evidence P.W.8- Damodaran stated that he had taken a loan 15 years
ago and he did not give details about the loan taken by him. Likewise,
P.W.7-Sundar who was closely related to the petitioner also did not give
any details of the loan taken and repaid by him. The learned counsel
submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the third accused was
responsible for making entries of Chitta Book and Day Book. However, the
learned Magistrate acquitted the third accused by holding that there was no
evidence to find and guilt. He would also submit that the prosecution has
not established either misappropriation or the fact that the petitioner was
the person responsible for making the entries. The learned counsel also
submitted that in similar cases, this Court by an Order dated 01.02.2022
had acquitted the accused/petitioner in Criminal Revision Nos. 621 and
6/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
622 of 2017 and also in Crl.R.C.No.695 of 2017 by the order dated
22.07.2022.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner on the basis of the
evidence of the witnesses. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also
submitted that the scope of revision is very limited and this Court can
interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below only if there is any
glaring feature which would tantamount to miscarriage of Justice or where
there is perversity in the findings.
10.We find that in this case, that though the Courts below have
elaborately discussed the facts contained in the loan files pertaining to the
witnesses examined by the prosecution, none of the witnesses have spoken
about the details of the loan taken by them and the date of payment and
about the alleged misappropriation by the petitioner. This Court finds that
in the absence of the evidence of the witnesses confirming the facts or the
materials available in the loan files, the documents cannot be looked into
and relied upon for the purpose of rendering the finding of guilt. That
apart, the Courts below found that the petitioner was guilty of
7/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
misappropriation on the ground that the receipt of loan amount was entered
in one of the Register and it was not brought on record in cash, Chitta and
Day book and hence, the petitioner had misappropriated the said amount.
In our view, such an inference cannot be drawn. The prosecution had not
established that the petitioner was responsible for making entries in the
cash Chitta and Day book. On the other hand, it is the case of the
prosecution that the third accused who was acquitted was responsible for
making entries in the above two documents. In any event, not making an
entry by itself would not establish misappropriation.
11.We also find that the prosecution has been initiated against the
petitioner and other employees of the Bank only based on the report of
P.W.13-Investigating Officer and none of the persons who had obtained
loan or repaid the loan had given any complaint against the employees of
the Bank. The Courts below having found that there is no evidence as
against the second and third accused ought to have seen that there is no
other evidence to establish the commission of offence against the
petitioner.
12.We also find that in similar cases wherein the allegation was that
the sanctioned loan amount was not disbursed to the borrowers and only a
8/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
lesser sum was disbursed, this Court had acquitted the petitioner on the
ground that the prosecution failed to produce vital documents to establish
that the petitioner committed the offences alleged against him. The
relevant observations made by this Court in the Order dated 01.02.2022
passed in Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017 are extracted here for facility:-
''...
23. It is alleged by the prosecution that the first
accused is the custodian of the registers and all other
Books of Accounts pertaining to the loans given to
the members and by making used of his access to the
records, he had misappropriated the portion of the
loan amount sanctioned to the borrowers by making
false entries in the relevant registers. Hence, it is
obligatory on the part of the prosecution to produce
the relevant records in order to prove that false
entries have been made on them for the purpose of
committing misappropriation.”
While dealing with the evidence of Enquiry Officer, this Court held
as follows.
“...
27...His categorical evidence is that cash chitta
receipts, loan disbursal proceedings, loan register
9/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
and credit loan applications were the regular duties
of the second accused despite the first accused was
the over all in-charge of the Bank. But the learned
trial Judge had acquitted the second accused from
all that charges.
...
33.In this case in hand, which is based on documents
findings have been rendered on the basis of the oral
evidence of the witnesses, without looking into the
documents. Unless the documents are produced and
proved no findings as to the commission of the offence
by falsifying the records could be recorded.''
13.We are of the view, that the above observations are applicable to
the facts of the instant case. Hence, we hold that the Judgement of the
Appellate Court confirming the Judgement of the Trial Court is liable to
be set aside.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the
Judgement of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore
District dated 10.08.2016 made in C.A.No.248 of 2011 is hereby set aside
and the petitioner is set at liberty. The bail bond if any executed by the
10/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled.
12.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
vsn
To
1. I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Vellore
3.Inspector of Police,
C.C.I.W., C.I.D.
Vellore.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai -600 104.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
vsn
11/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
Crl.R.C.No.623 of 2017
12.08.2022
12/ 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
