Madras High Court
M.Rasiah vs The State Through on 3 January, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 03/01/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.693, 695, 696, 697 and 698 of 2021
(1)Crl.RC(MD)No.693 of 2021:-
M.Rasiah : Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Cases Investigation Wing,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.02 of 2013) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
the records and set aside the order passed in Criminal
Appeal No.38 of 2020, dated 24/08/2021 on the file of the
IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the
orders passed in CC No.9 of 2014 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 (CCIW-Special Court),
Tirunelveli, dated 31/07/2020.
(2)Crl.RC(MD)No.695 of 2021:-
M.Rasiah : Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Cases Investigation Wing,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.02 of 2013) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
the records and set aside the order passed in Criminal
Appeal No.37 of 2020, dated 24/08/2021 on the file of the
IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the
orders passed in CC No.6 of 2014 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 (CCIW-Special Court),
Tirunelveli, dated 31/07/2020.
(3)Crl.RC(MD)No.696 of 2021:-
M.Rasiah : Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Cases Investigation Wing,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.02 of 2013) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
the records and set aside the order passed in Criminal
Appeal No.39 of 2020, dated 24/08/2021 on the file of the
IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the
orders passed in CC No.10 of 2014 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 (CCIW-Special Court),
Tirunelveli, dated 31/07/2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(4)Crl.RC(MD)No.697 of 2021:-
M.Rasiah : Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Cases Investigation Wing,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.02 of 2013) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
the records and set aside the order passed in Criminal
Appeal No.40 of 2020, dated 24/08/2021 on the file of the
IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the
orders passed in CC No.7 of 2014 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 (CCIW-Special Court),
Tirunelveli, dated 31/07/2020.
(5)Crl.RC(MD)No.698 of 2021:-
M.Rasiah : Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Cases Investigation Wing,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.02 of 2013) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
the records and set aside the order passed in Criminal
Appeal No.41 of 2020, dated 24/08/2021 on the file of the
IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
orders passed in CC No.8 of 2014 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 (CCIW-Special Court),
Tirunelveli, dated 31/07/2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman
(In all cases)
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
(In all cases) Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
These criminal revisions have been filed against
impugned orders passed by the IV Additional District
Court, Tirunelveli, on 24/08/2021, confirming the orders
passed by the trial court.
2.The common facts:-
The petitioner was the Secretary of the Tenkasi
Panchayat Union Area Primary and Middle School Teachers and
Staff Thrift and Credit Society Limited. He was in the post
from 10/07/2009 to 09/07/2010. He collected the amount paid
by the members of the Association, but failed to remit the
same in the society account. On that basis, a case was
registered in Crime No.2 of 2013 and the misappropriated
amount is stated to be Rs.66,000/-. This is in respect of
Crl.RC(MD)No.693 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Crime No.2 of 2013 was registered for the amount
misappropriated during the period of 02/06/2016 to
11/06/2007. The very same allegation has been made and the
misappropriation amount is mentioned as Rs.86,300/-. This
is in respect of Crl.RC(MD)No.695 of 2021.
4.For the period of misappropriation of the amount
from 29/09/2010 to 28/09/2011, Crime No.2 of 2013 was
registered and the amount misappropriated is stated to be
Rs.57,200/-. This is in respect of Crl.RC(MD)No.696 of
2021.
5.For the period 12/06/2007 to 11/06/2008, the very
same crime number is registered and the misappropriation
amount is Rs.3,55,121/-. This is in respect of
Crl.RC(MD)No.697 of 2021.
6.For the period from 13/06/2008 to 12/06/2009, the
very same crime number was registered and the
misappropriated amount is stated to be Rs.2,21,250/-. This
is in respect of Crl.RC(MD)No.698 of 2021.
7.In all these matters, after completing the
investigation process, final report was filed making
allegations against the petitioner that he has committed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the offences punishable under sections 408, 477-A and 204
IPC. Since the amount are different and periods, even
though the crime number is the same, separate final report
has been filed, which has been taken cognizance by the
trial court separately in CC Nos.6 to 10 of 2014.
8.In all the matters, at the conclusion of the
trial process, the trial court came to the conclusion that
the guilt of the accused has been proved by the prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- with default
clause for each offence. All the sentences were ordered to
be run concurrently.
9.Challenging the above said conviction and
sentence, he preferred appeal before the appellate court
namely the IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli,
separately and the appeals have been rejected, confirming
the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Challenging the concurrent findings, these criminal
revisions have been preferred.
10.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.Only limited issue involved in all these
revision petitions. In the grounds of revision, it has been
stated by the petitioner that the recording of conviction
and sentence were made on the ground that this petitioner
failed to produce the day today book, which will indicate
the daily collection of the money; The prosecution ought to
have produced the documents before the trial court. But
that was not done and the petitioner was not the employee
of the society, but only holding additional charge; Only
during the tenure of the erstwhile Secretary of the
society, incurred loss. He has also made some sort of
grounds for rejecting the evidence and the above said day
book was also found to be handed over during the enquiry
under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Central Cooperative Act;
In-turn handed over to the prosecution. So the above said
offences are not attracted.
12.In the light of the above said facts, now let us
straightway go to the judgment of the appellate court on
this aspect.
13.No doubt that the evidence of the enquiry
officer was not taken into account, either by the trial
court or by the appellate court. It is a mistake not only
on the part of the trial court, but also on the part of the
appellate court. We will come to the point later.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.The contention that the petitioner was holding
only additional charge is not correct, since as per the
resolution, dated 20/02/2006 (Ex.P41), the petitioner was
appointed as Secretary in-charge and also took over the
charge, on 21/02/2006. He was appointed as Secretary in-
charge and towards discharge of his duty as per the
procedure and rules. There is specific allegation to the
effect that during that period only, he misappropriated the
money, which was collected by him from the members and
failed to remit the same in the account. Because of the
delay of 15 years in taking out the auditing, it has been
taken advantage by the petitioner. Now he wants to improve
his defence on the basis of the above said delay. But here
this is related to the duty of this petitioner. Simply
because, auditing was not undertaken for 15 years that will
not strength his defence. Simply blaming the higher
officials will not also give any benefit to the petitioner.
There is an evidence by PW9 to the effect that the
petitioner printed separate receipt books and utilised the
same to collect the money from the members of the society.
So this itself shows the criminal intent and misconduct on
the part of the petitioner.
15.Now coming back to the contention on the part of
the petitioner that day book was handed over to the enquiry
office namely PW9, who in turn handed over the same to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Investigating Officer is also not correct on record.
Because as per the evidence of PW9, the day book was
maintained by the petitioner only for one year namely from
20/02/2006 to 31/03/2007. On the previous occasion also,
misappropriation has been taken place. It has been
Balakrishnamoorthy, who was holding the Secretary of the
society. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed additional
in charge. So it appears that this petitioner is continuing
the very same misappropriation process.
16.Regarding availing of loan by the members was
also proved before the trial court by producing Ex.P51 to
P62, P64 and P68. So no denial can be made with regard to
the admission of the members.
17.As mentioned earlier, printing of separate
receipt books for the purpose of collecting the loan amount
from the members will show the criminal intention as
mentioned earlier. On that sole basis, I find that the
conviction that was recorded by the trial court as
confirmed by the appellate court cannot be found fault. So,
I find no reason to interfere in the conviction portion
also. Of course, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has not advanced much argument on this point.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.Regarding the sentence, a request has been made
by the petitioner to the effect that he is ready to pay the
entire alleged misappropriation amount to the Official
Liquidator of the society and also produced the demand
drafts taken and drawn in favour of the Official
Liquidator. He has also produced the receipt for the same.
It has been submitted that the above said demand drafts
have been handed over. So on that ground, he seeks
modification of the sentence. Now, the petitioner has been
in custody from 25/02/2022 to 03/01/2023. So I am of the
considered view that the sentence period must be reduced to
the period already undergone.
19.Even though in the judgment of the trial court,
even there was no order to run all the sentences
concurrently, I am of the considered view that the above
said order can be modified to the effect in all the
matters, the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
20.In the result, all the Criminal Revisions are
partly allowed, by reducing the sentence awarded to the
petitioner/accused to the sentence already undergone by him
I.e., from 25/02/2022 to 03/01/2023. In respect of fine
amount, the findings of the trial court is confirmed. The
petitioner may be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detention is required in connection with any other case.
03/01/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The IV Additional District Judge,
Tiruneveli.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Cases Investigation Wing,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.693, 695,
696, 697 and 698 of 2021
03/01/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
