Madras High Court
K.Ravindranath vs State Rep. By on 1 February, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
K.Ravindranath ... Petitioner/Accused – 1
Vs.
State rep. by.,
Inspector of Police,
C.C.I.W., C.I.D.,
Vellore.
(Crime No.1 of 2003) ... Respondent
Prayer :- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment passed against the petitioner in
C.A.No.250 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.302 of 2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the
judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,
dated 10.08.2016 made in C.A.250 of 2011.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused was the
Secretary, the second accused was the Assistant Secretary and the third
accused was the President of Valathur Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Bank; the Secretary is responsible for the maintenance of the bank
accounts, ledgers and all transactions including the properties of the Bank.
The second accused as the Assistant Secretary of the Bank, had got a duty
to open ledger sheets for collecting loan repayments, membership
contributions and maintain the disbursal register, Day Book and Cash
Register; the third accused had got the over all responsibility to maintain all
the properties belonging to the Bank. During the period between
14.02.1994 to 09.04.1994 and 31.08.1995 to 01.10.1998, the first accused
went on medical leave; during that time, the second accused held the
additional charge of the Secretary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
2.1 The first accused had conspired with other accused to
misappropriate the money of the Bank and with that intention, between the
period from 27.01.2000 to 25.01.2001, he omitted to maintain proper
records and make relevant entries. Whenever the members of the
Bank/borrowers repay the agricultural loan availed by them, the accused 1
& 2 were in the habit of making entries only in the loan register; whenever
the members get the loan amount from the fixed deposit made by them, they
make false entries in the loan register; they only disbursed less amount than
the actual amount sanctioned as loan; even for the paid loan amount they
would not issue proper cash receipts; the accused 1 and 2 had
misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,74,628/-; for the fraudulent acts committed
by the accused 1 and 2, the third accused also supported and thereby, the
accused have committed the offences under Sections 408 r/w 35 and
477(A) of IPC.
2.2 On the surprise inspection made by P.W.2 – Thomas, Divisional
Supervisor, Pernampet on 08.06.2001, certain lapses were noticed in the
accounts maintained by the Bank; he noticed that for many accounts, entries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
have been made in the loan register against the debit and credit columns but
relevant entries were not made in the Day Books; in view of this, he
submitted a special report dated 11.06.2001 to the Special Officer, Central
Co-Operative Bank, Vellore. During the relevant time,P.W.4 – Gurunathan,
Field Manager at Gudiyatham Branch, also submitted a special report to the
Special Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank, Vellore on 23.06.2001 by
stating that by exaggerating the pending loan amount and by disbursing the
smaller loan amounts, the first accused had misappropriated the difference
in the above said amount.
2.3 On receiving the special reports, P.W.3 – Ranganathan, Deputy
Registrar of Tirupattur Division appointed P.W.31 – Thangavelu as the
Enquiry Officer and issued proceedings – Ex.P2. Since Thangavelu went
on leave, a revised proceedings was issued for appointing one
Rajendiran – P.W.32 as the Enquiry Officer. After completing the enquiry,
P.W.32 – Rajendiran has submitted a report stating that a total sum of
Rs.26,25,529/- have been misappropriated in the Bank during the relevant
period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
2.4 On the complaint given by P.W.1 – Thandavamoorthy, Deputy
Registrar of Co-Operative Bank, a case in Crime No.1 of 2003 of CCIW
Police was registered and an F.I.R was prepared on 05.01.2003 on the
complaint given on the same day. P.W.33 – Deivasigamani, Inspector of
Police, had registered a case and prepared the F.I.R. He took up the case
for investigation and seized the relevant records and arrested the accused 1
and 3 namely Ravindranath and Boopathy on 05.01.2003 and sent them for
remand. During the pendency of the investigation, P.W.33 got transfered to
some other place so, P.W.34 – Pandari, Inspector of Police, succeeded him
and continued the investigation. He examined the rest of the witnesses and
completed his investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused on
30.05.2005.
3. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the
materials available on record, the learned trial Judge has framed the charges
against the first and second accused for the offences under Sections 408
r/w. 35 and 477(A) r/w. 35 of IPC and against the third accused for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
offence under Section 408 r/w. 35 of IPC. When the accused were
questioned, they pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of the trial, on the side of the prosecution 34
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.34 and 60 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P60. When the incriminating part of evidence
surfaced from the evidence of the complainant was put to the accused 1 to 3
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their involvement. On the side of
the defence, no witness was examined and no document is marked.
5. At the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidence
available on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty as
under:-
Rank Provisions under which convicted Sentence
A1 408 r/w 35 One year Rigorous Imprisonment and
imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment.
477(A) One year Rigorous Imprisonment and
imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo 15 days Rigorous Imprisonment.
The sentences shall run concurrently.
The second and third accused were found not guilty and acquitted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
6. The Criminal Appeal preferred by the first accused in C.A.No.250
of 2011 before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, was also
dismissed on 10.08.2016. Aggrieved over that, the first accused preferred
this present revision case.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/first accused and the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
respondent/State.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/first accused submitted that
the Enquiry Officer – Rajendiran has not been given any enquiry
proceedings for the purpose of conducting enquiry, after the said previous
Enquiry Officer – Thangavelu went on leave. In the enquiry made under
Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, the enquiry has
to be completed within a mandatory period of three months and at the
maximum extended period of six months. Despite the Enquiry Officer was
appointed on 11.07.2001, the enquiry report has been submitted on
18.03.2002 and hence, the enquiry report itself is violative of Section 81(4)
and it is not valid in the eye of law. Hence, the case registered basing on
the enquiry report itself is unlawful. The Day Book was not marked as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
document by the prosecution despite it is the best evidence. When the
Enquiry Officer has given a finding that all the three accused were
responsible for the affairs of the Bank and the learned trial Judge had
acquitted the second and third accused, hence the first accused should also
been given with benefit of doubt.
8.1 The learned trial Judge had found the first accused guilty only
based on the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses; there is no dispute
with regard to the signatures of the witnesses affixed on the documents
maintained by the Bank in connection with the loan transactions; the
witnesses have deposed evidence in favour of the prosecution just to avoid
from the liability to repay the loan amount availed by them; when the case
of the prosecution is relied on the documentary evidence, it is the duty of
the prosecution to bring the relevant documents as evidence before the
Court; since the prosecution has omitted to produce the relevant documents,
the Courts below ought to have held that the charges against the accused
including the first accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and
hence, the revision case should be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for
the respondent State submitted that the witnesses have stated in their
evidence that lesser amount were disbursed to borrowers despite higher
amounts were sanctioned as loan and the accused had misappropriated the
remaining amount by making false entries on records; the Officers of the
Co-Operative Bank who have conducted the inquiry and prepared a special
report have also stated in their evidence about the misappropriation; the
learned trial Judge and the First Appellate Judge have appreciated the
evidence in a proper perspective and found the first accused guilty and
hence, it needs no interference.
9.1 The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the role
of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction is very limited and it is that of a
supervisory jurisdiction and the Court can call for records and examine it
only for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness and legality of
propriety of any finding, sentence or orders. In respect of his above said
contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in
the case of 'Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda' reported in '(2018) 8 Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
Court Cases 165'. The attention of this Court is attracted to para 12 and the
same is extracted as under:-
12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. and the ground for exercising the
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala vs.
Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999 (2) SCC 452, while
considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court this Court has laid down the following:
“5......In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can
call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the
jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said
revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an
appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate
jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate
for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its
own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already
been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions
Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the
notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to
gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned
judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we
have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the
conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral
evidence.....”
10. Point for Consideration :-
Whether the finding of the guilt of the first accused for the offences
under Sections 408 r/w 35 and 477(A) of IPC, based on the materials
available on record is fair and proper?
11. The origin of this case is the report submitted by
P.W.2 – Thomas, who had conducted a surprise inspection in the Bank on
08.06.2001. He has stated in his report submitted to the Field Manager on
11.06.2001 that out of 43 loan accounts, there were no entries made in the
Day Book for some 12 loan accounts and some of the Day Books were not
given to him for inspection. Hence, he requested to appoint an Enquiry
Officer to enquire into the whole scam and to file a report. His letter dated
11.06.2001 forms part of Ex.P4. On the basis of the said report,
P.W.1 – Thandavamurthy the then Deputy Registrar of Vellore District
Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
Thirupattur Division on 14.06.2001 and endorsed the views of P.W.2.
P.W.1 had also written another letter to the Deputy Registrar on 03.07.2001
by stating that he got a report from the Field Manager, Gudiyatham that
there was some misappropriation committed in the jewel loan files also and
it required appropriate action. Only thereafter, the proceedings was issued
by P.W.3 – Ranganathan, Deputy Registrar, Thirupattur, for appointing
P.W.31 – Thangavelu as Enquiry Officer. Since Thangavelu went on leave,
another proceedings dated 28.09.2001 was issued by the then Deputy
Registrar of Thiruppatur District, P.W.3 – Ranganathan for appointing
P.W.32 – Rajendiran as Enquiry officer.
12. So far as this revision case is concerned, the misappropriation is
found to have been committed in connection with the loans pertaining to
P.W.12, P.W.15, P.W.19, P.W.21, P.W.23, P.W.24 and P.W.28. The
following differences in the amounts are said to have been misappropriated
by the petitioner/first accused:-
Sanctioned Amount Given Amount Alleged
misappropriation
P.W.12 41,750 10,180 31,570
P.W.15 40,880 - 40,880
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
P.W.19 17,395 10,000 7,395
P.W.21 11,240 2,000 9,240
P.W.23 12,775 6,000 6,775
P.W.24 30,630 15,000 15,630
P.W.28 11,750 10,000 1,750
1,13,240
13. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it is seen
that as against P.W.28 – Kanniyan, he relied upon two documents, Exs.P10
& P38. Ex.P10 is the statement of P.W.28 before the Enquiry Officer and
Ex.P38 is the loan file of P.W.28. According to P.W.28, a sum of
Rs.1,750/- was misappropriated. He has stated that it is shown in his loan
file that on 28.06.2000, a sum of Rs.11,750/- was sanctioned to him as loan
but actually he was given with a sum of Rs.10,000/- only. In this
connection, the Enquiry Officer – P.W.32 has produced the loan file as
Ex.P38.
On perusal of the said loan file, it is seen that P.W.28 has affixed his
signature in the loan application and in which a loan amount of Rs.11,750/-
had been requested on 28.06.2000 and a loan of Rs.11,750/- has been
sanctioned on the same day. A signed withdrawal form for Rs.11,750/-
dated 28.06.2000 is also produced along with Loan Card cum Cash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
Account Folio. In the said folio, there are entries found for the disbursal of
a sum of Rs.11,750/- on 28.06.2000. Despite the difference was found due
to the omission of entries made in the Day Books, they were not produced
before the trial Court. At no point of time P.W.28 has given any complaint
against any of the accused by stating that he was asked to affix his signature
for higher amount but actually he was given with lesser amount. Unless the
basic documents on which the false entries were alleged to have been made
in order to commit misappropriation are produced before the Court, no
finding about the commission of misappropriation can be given.
14. The important documents namely the Day Book and the loan
registers of the individuals were not shown to the Court in order to correlate
the loan file entries with that of the Day Book and to prove that the first
accused had committed misappropriation by making false entries.
15. P.W.15 – Balasundaram has stated that he had availed only a sum
of Rs.29,000/- as loan but it has been falsely shown against his loan
account that a sum of Rs.40,880/- has been sanctioned and disbursed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
him. The loan file pertaining to P.W.15 is produced as Ex.P40. In fact,
P.W.15 has denied his very signature in his loan file document. Despite the
loan files are maintained by the Bank and the member of the Bank, P.W.15
claimed that the papers did not contain his signature, the prosecution has
not taken any steps to get his admitted signatures in order to compare the
same with the disputed signature and to get a report from a Scientific
Expert. His loan file contains a page of loan register, which is said to be the
loan sheet of the loan register. It is seen from the said document that no
entry was made even for the admitted loan amount of Rs.29,000/-. P.W.15
has stated in his evidence that before five years, he availed a sum of
Rs.29,000/- as loan that means it would have been in the year 1995. But
the Loan Register Folio for P.W.15 was not produced either for the year
1995 or for the disputed year 2000. Excepting the oral evidence of P.W.15
and the evidence of P.W.32 by producing Ex.P40, no other connected
document is produced to establish the loan misappropriation as against
P.W.15. P.W.15 has not given any complaint to any of the officials of the
Bank by alleging the act of misappropriation. Unless the basic document
which contains the false entries is produced before the Court, no finding as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
to the commission of misappropriation can be rendered.
16. P.W.21 – M.Munirathinam has stated that on 05.07.2000, a sum
of Rs.11,240/- was sanctioned on his application but he was disbursed with
only with Rs.2,000/- and thereby, a sum of Rs.9,240/- was misappropriated.
His loan file is marked as Ex.P43. It is seen that in the loan application
Form-I, loan sanction order and the withdrawal form, P.W.21 has affixed
his signature. It is not disputed by P.W.21 that the signatures affixed in the
said documents are not his signatures. It is claimed by the prosecution that
in Ex.P43, cash chitta and Day Book pages have been produced. But from
the entries made in the above documents, it is seen that they pertained to the
year 1996 and they have no relevance to the time of occurrence. Unless the
basic document on which the false entries were alleged to have been made
are produced before the Court, no finding as to the misappropriation can be
rendered.
17. P.W.23 – G.Munirathinam has stated that on his loan application
dated 28.06.2000, a sum of Rs.12,775/- was sanctioned but he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
disbursed with only Rs.6,000/- and thereby, a sum of Rs.6,775/- was
misappropriated; his loan file is produced as Ex.P41. He has affixed his
signature in the loan application near the loan sanction order and in the cash
withdrawal form. In all these documents, the amount given to him was
shown as Rs.12,775/- only. Despite, the correspondent entries made in the
Day Book are alleged to be the false entries, the same was produced before
the trial Court. Neither P.W.23 has given any complaint on the basis of the
above allegations. Unless the basic document on which the false entries
were alleged to have been made are produced before the Court, no finding
as to the misappropriation can be rendered.
18. P.W.12 – Rasheed Ahmad has stated that as against the
sanctioned loan amount of Rs.41,750/-, he was given with only Rs.10,180/-
and the balance amount of Rs.31,570/- had been misappropriated by the
accused. P.W.12 has also given his statement before the Enquiry Officer
and they have been marked as Ex.P4. P.W.32 – Enquiry Officer has
produced the loan file of P.W.12 as Ex.P54. On perusal of the loan file of
P.W.12, it is seen that in Form I- application for the loan and Form V- loan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
sanctioned order, the signature of P.W.12 is found. In Form-I application,
P.W.12 has requested to sanction a sum of Rs.42,750/- as crop loan for the
period between 2000-2001. In Form-V, it is seen that he has been
sanctioned with a loan of Rs.41,750/-. This has been evidenced by the
withdrawal slip given by P.W.12 on 29.12.2000.
18.1. The loan card and the loan account sheet of P.W.12 would also
show that the loan amount has been disbursed under two types i.e., a sum of
Rs.7,790/- in kind and a sum of Rs.33,780/- in cash, making together
Rs.41,750/-. The loan file also contains the Loan Register Folio of P.W.12
and some Day Book entries. But it is seen that all these relate to the year
1997. Unless the relevant Loan Register Folios and the Day Books relating
to the relevant period are produced before the Court, it cannot be compared
whether misappropriation has been done by making false entries in the
same. So far as the other loan documents are concerned, the borrower
himself has affixed his signature. It is not his contention that the signature
in the loan papers does not belong to him. Neither P.W.12 had filed any
complaint against the Officials of the Co-Operative Bank on the allegation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
of any fraud in disbursing the loans. The Loan Register Folio did not
contain entries even for the admitted disbursal of Rs.10,180/-. This would
once again confirm that the relevant registers are not produced for
comparison.
19. P.W.24 – Ranganathan has stated that as against the sanctioned
loan of Rs.30,630/- on 25.01.2001, a sum of Rs.15,000/- alone was given to
him and the balance of Rs.15,630/- was misappropriated by the accused.
P.W.24 had not given any statement before the Enquiry Officer. However,
P.W.32 – Enquiry Officer has produced Ex.P57- loan file of the said
Ranganathan. On perusal of Ex.P57, it is seen that the loan application in
Form-I has been submitted by him on 25.01.2001 and he requested to
sanction a sum of Rs.31,500/-. However a sum of Rs.30,630/- had been
sanctioned under Form-V. In both the documents, P.W.24 has affixed his
signature. Out of the total loan amount of Rs.30,630/- a sum of Rs.2,800/-
was issued in kind and a sum of Rs.27,830/- was issued in cash on
25.01.2001. In order to evidence the cash disbursal of loan, P.W.24 has
also executed a cash credit withdrawal slip dated 25.01.2001. The loan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
card and cash credit account sheet of P.W.24 would show the above entries
on the relevant date.
19.1 Though the prosecution has claimed that the first accused has
manipulated the Day Books and misappropriated a portion of the
sanctioned loan amount, the relevant records were not produced before the
trial Court. Unless the basic records are produced, it is not possible for the
Court to compare the entries in the loan file along with the loan register or
the Cash book. P.W.24 – Ranganathan did not deny his signatures found in
the above document of his loan file. At no point of time, he has given any
complaint against the first accused by alleging that by way of falsification
of accounts, the loan amount meant to be disbursed to him misappropriated
by the first accused.
20. P.W.19 – Govindaraj has stated that as against the sanctioned
loan of Rs.17,395/- on 24.02.2000, he was given with only Rs.10,000/- and
the balance amount of Rs.7,395/- was misappropriated by making false
entries in the records. The Enquiry Officer – P.W.32 has deposed evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
and has produced Ex.P17 – loan file of P.W.19 and the statement – Ex.P6.
On perusal of the records, neither Form-I nor Form-V or the withdrawal slip
pertaining to this loan account is available. Some of the Loan Register
Folio and receive register entries produced with regard to P.W.19, are seen
to be pertaining to the years 1988, 1994 etc. In fact, the Loan Register
Folio of P.W.19 would show that Rs.17,395/- has been entered as the loan
amount given to P.W.19. When the Loan Register Folio of the individual
itself shows that the loan amount was disbursed to him correctly, it cannot
be said that he has been given with a lesser amount against the higher
amount sanctioned as loan.
21. The trial Court has found that a sum of Rs.13,460/- was
misappropriated as against the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.45,000/- for
P.W.11 – Mohanam. The Appellate Court has reversed the said finding.
And the prosecution has not filed any appeal challenging the same.
22. P.W.31 – Thangavelu, who was first appointed as the Enquiry
Officer has stated in his evidence that he was appointed as the Enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
Officer to make inquiries with regard to loan accounts from 1142 to 2670.
But it is seen that the Enquiry Officer had gone beyond his powers and
made an exhaustive Enquiry about the loans which do not connect to the
loan Nos.1142 to 2670.
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 use 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.
24. According to Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act, the contents
of the document should be proved either by primary evidence or by
secondary evidence. Primary evidence is the very document on which the
false entries is said to have been made and the secondary evidence are the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
certified copies of the original duly authenticated by the concerned Officer.
Since false entries have been made on the registers and records said to have
been maintained by the first accused, the original records ought to have
been produced.
25. No doubt, the loan registers and other Books of Accounts
maintained by the Bank would be voluminous and bulky. But that cannot
be the reason for non-production when false entries are said to have been
made on them. Unless the origin of the offence i.e., the entries made in the
concerned registers are produced and proved, no reliance can be given to
mere oral statements of the borrowers who were examined before the trial
Court as P.Ws.12, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24 & 28.
26. It is seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Judge
had believed the oral evidence of the borrowers and the
Enquiry Officer – P.W.32, though the loan files relating to the borrowers do
not show anything as to the allegation of misappropriation. In fact,
P.W.2 – Thomas has stated in his report that some of the registers were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
produced before him for inspection. In such case, the Investigation Officer
should have got a search warrant from the Court and recovered the relevant
registers. Neither any petition is filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records from the person under whose custody they were lying.
27. In fact, the Enquiry Officer – P.W.32 has stated in his evidence
that he did not take any steps to send the disputed signatures to the Forensic
Expert for comparison and get a report. He has stated that the annual
inspection of the Bank have been done promptly till the previous years.
During those periods for which annual inspections were done, no
discrepancy in the records has been pointed out. Even the deposit entries or
other clerical errors are allowed to be rectified. His categorical evidence is
that cash chitta receipts, loan disbursal proceedings, loan register 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 the charges.
28. As per Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, all facts can be
proved through oral evidence except the contents of the documents. So in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
case based on the contents of the documents, those facts could only be
proved through documents and not mere oral evidence.
29. It has been already pointed out that important documents were
withheld by the prosecution. If the primary documentary proof is not
produced, the Courts have to draw an adverse presumption against the party
who withheld the documents. It is a serious case in which it is alleged that
lot of falsification of records have been made and that led to a larger scale
scam in the Bank. The public money is used by the Bank for the purpose of
welfare of the agriculturists. Hence, the supervising authorities of the Bank
or the Investigation Officer ought to have taken due steps to cause the
documents produced.
30. With the mere statement of the borrowers before the court, it
cannot be presumed that as against the larger amounts sanctioned for them
they were given with only lesser amounts as loan. The borrowers are
interested persons who might intend to escape from the liability of paying
the actual loan amount by saying that only lesser amount were given to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
them. In fact, they had signed all the loan papers and issued withdrawal
slips without any objection. It has been observed already that the borrowers
have not given any complaint before the initiation of Section 81 enquiry, by
alleging that they have been made to sign papers which had false details.
The enquiry proceedings preceded the report of an Inspecting Authority.
The said report was sent to the Deputy Registrar (through proper channel)
and in which it is stated that there might be a large scale scam. Under such
circumstances, the Enquiry Officer at least should have called for the
records while inquiring the concerned Officials.
31. No proper investigation has been done by seizing the relevant
records. Though the Secretary is responsible for the overall affairs of the
Bank, he cannot act individually without the support of other Officials.
Since the relevant documents were not produced to substantiate the case of
the prosecution, the finding of the guilt of the first accused calls for
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
32. It has been insisted by the learned Government Advocate for the
prosecution that the scope for re-appreciation of the evidence during the
revision proceedings is very limited. It is true that once the trial Court had
appreciated the facts and the First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the
same, there cannot be any more appreciation about the facts proved before
the court, even if the High Court feels that the evidence can be appreciated
in some other angle. But as held in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda reported in (2018) 8
Supreme Court Cases 165, if any glaring feature which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice is brought to the notice of the
High Court, the same cannot be ignored and the High Court has to deal with
it by invoking its revisional jurisdiction.
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. This gross and glaring omission resulted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
miscarriage of justice cannot be neglected and it warrants interference. In
view of the foregoing discussion, I feel that the judgment of the Court
below has to be set aside.
34. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the
judgment of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore District,
dated 10.08.2016 made in C.A.No.250 of 2011 is hereby set aside.
01.02.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
R.N.MANJULA.,J.
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2017
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
