Madras High Court
T.Rengarajan vs State Through on 2 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20896 to 20901 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9660 to 9671 of 2018
T.Rengarajan : Petitioner/A2
(in all cases)
Vs.
1.State through
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
6103/2, Combined Co-operative Complex,
Annavasal Road, Pudukkottai. : Respondents in all cases
Common Prayer:Criminal Original Petitions have been
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and
quash the proceedings of the charge sheet in CC No.409 to
414 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Pudukkottai, respectively.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
(in all cases)
For Respondents : Mr.SS.Madhavan
(in all cases) Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
COMMON ORDER
These criminal original petitions have been filed
seeking quashment of the case in CC Nos.409 to 414 of 2018
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pudukkottai, respectively.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The 1st accused by name Duraisamy was working as
'Godown Keeper' in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing
Federation (TANFED) from 12/01/2005 till 31/10/2013. It is
his duty and responsibility to receive the fertilizers,
insecticides and seeds and issue receipt vouchers,
maintaining the proper stock registers. It is also his duty
to inform any cause of deficiency in the stock and supply.
He can receive only the stock with the specific brand
'TANFED'. It is also his duty to deliver the stock. On the
basis of the demand to the Agricultural Co-operative
Societies only through the recognized transport service,
the stock must be delivered and supplied. So for that
purpose, he must also receive proper vouchers from the
transport owners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
3.In so far as this petitioner is concerned, he was
working as 'Junior Assistant' in various places and finally
from 07/06/2012 to 16/12/2013, he was working as
'Additional In-charge of the Regional Internal Auditor. So
it is his duty to audit and verify all the stock registers
and delivery registers etc. It is also his duty to inform
the higher officials in case of any deficiency is noticed
during the audit period.
4.It is further stated that all the accused persons
joined together, conspired and misappropriated the money.
They have also created documents, as if fertilizers have
been delivered to the Agricultural Co-operative Societies
and they have been sold the same in the open market and
misappropriated the money. The total amount misappropriated
in the above process is Rs.43,90,144/- and this petitioner
is also actively colluded and conspired with the other
accused persons and have misappropriated the money. So a
report has been filed on the basis of the enquiry report,
which was registered in Crime No.1 of 2015. After
completing the investigation, the final report was filed
alleging that this petitioner along with the other accused
persons committed the offences under sections 408, 467,
468, 471, 477(A) r/w 34, 109 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
5.Seeking quashment of the above said criminal
proceedings, these petitions have been filed by A2, who was
working as Internal Auditor in TANFED during the relevant
time.
6.Heard both sides.
7.These petitions can be disposed of on a short
premise, since the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon several judgments, which are
directly on this point.
8.Straightway we will go to the order that has been
passed by this court in C.R.P(MD)No.609 of 2017, dated
11/10/2018 (T.Rengarajan Vs. V.Ramachadnran and another),
which was filed by this petitioner. That petition has been
filed in the following facts and circumstances.
9.As set out in the preamble portion, enquiry was
undertaken under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative
Societies Act, 1983. Following the above said order,
surcharge proceedings were also initiated. In this
proceedings, the Godown Keeper namely Duraisamy and
Regional namely S.Ramachandran and the Internal Auditor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
T.Rengarajan, who is the petitioner herein were held
responsible for the loss of the amount, which has been
mentioned in that final order. The final order was passed
under section 87 of the Act and surcharge proceeding was
also directed to be initiated on 11/03/2015. Against the
above said surcharge proceedings, appeal was filed in
C.M.A(CS) No.2 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge,
Pudukottai. That was dismissed, on 18/01/2017. Over the
above said dismissal of the CMA, that civil revision has
been filed. Even though maintainability of the revision was
one of the grounds of attack by the respondents, that was
negatived by this court, which we are not concerned in
these petitions.
10.Regarding the factual issues, this court has
observed that this petitioner was appointed as 'Internal
Auditor' of TANFED for Trichy Region. He was given
additional charge of Pudukottai Region also on 07/06/2012.
As mentioned earlier, the main allegation is only against
the Godown Keeper Duraisamy, who alleged to have fabricated
the documents, bills and sold the fertilizers in the open
market and misappropriated money. This court further
pointed out that under section 87 of the Act, a person who
is entrusted with the organisation or management of the
society is responsible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
11.These petitions were disposed of on the short point
as to whether this petitioner has caused any loss to the
society by his willful misconduct or breach of trust. On
the basis of the factual aspect, as found that this
petitioner has not caused any loss to the society by his
negligence and it was Duraisamy, who caused the loss by
removing the fertilizers from the godown stealthy. The
allegation against this petitioner is that he failed to
discover the above said crime, that was committed by the
above said Duraisamy. Since already misappropriation
occurred, this petitioner came to be scene only
subsequently, according to this court, no doubt that a
serious lapse has been committed, warranting initiation of
disciplinary proceedings.
12.Regarding the surcharge proceedings, it has been
held that there it be levelled only if any material
available or evidence has been recorded. The allegation
against the petitioner is that he has committed willful
negligence. Noting that the petitioner was held additional
in charge as many as one to three societies, it has been
held that the lapse on the part of the petitioner will not
amount to willful negligence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
13.By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Surinder Nath Dewan Vs. State of
Haryana (1994) Supplement 3 SCC 134, this court has held
that even though the petitioner was guilty of willful
negligence, absolutely there is no material on record to
show that he actively in collusion with the above
Duraisamy. So when we apply this finding to the facts of
the present case, willful negligence cannot fastened upon
the petitioner.
14.As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, even criminal investigation cannot be
fastened upon the petitioner. As it has been stated by
this court, if at all only the disciplinary proceedings can
be initiated against this petitioner. Absolutely no merit
is available to show that this petitioner has also colluded
and committed the offence conspiracy along with Duraisamy
and caused wrongful loss to TANFED. More-over, the role
that has assigned to the Internal Auditor has been
elaborately discussed by this court in more than one
occasions. Starting from the judgment in the case of
T.Elengo Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing-CID, dated 15/11/2017
(Crl.OP Nos.1734 to 1737 and 19846 of 2017], (G.Selvakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
Vs. State through Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W, CID,
Tirunelveli (2011)2 MLJ (Crl) 608; following Anbalagan Vs.
State represented by the Inspector of Police C.C.I,W, CID,
Thiruchirappalli (CrlO.P(MD)Nos.2039 to 20320 of 2016 and
20309 to 20320 of 2016, dated 20.07.2018), it has been
uniformly held by this court that person, who is in the
capacity of the supervisory nature cannot be held
criminally liable for the criminal act that has been
committed by the employee, unless a strong materials are
available. In the light of the above said judgments and the
surcharge proceedings that has been issued by the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, I am of the considered view that
the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner
will amount to abuse of process of court and law.
15.In the result, these criminal original petitions
are allowed. The proceedings in CC Nos.409 to 414 of 2018
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pudukkottai, are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
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.20896 to 20901 of 2018
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901 of 2018
02/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
