Madras High Court
S.Krishnamoorthy vs The State Represented By on 6 June, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
S.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner/
Petitioner/9th Accused
Vs.
The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
CCIW, Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.2 of 2015). ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside
the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2396 of 2018 in C.C.No.7 of 2018,
dated 14.11.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.III (CCIW), Madurai by allowing the criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
ORDER
This revision has been filed as against the order passed
in Crl.M.P.No.2396 of 2018 in C.C.No.7 of 2018, dated 14.11.2018
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III (CCIW), Madurai,
thereby dismissing the petition filed for discharge.
2.The respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.2 of
2015 on the complaint lodged by the enquiry officer for the offences
under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) r/w 109 of I.P.C as
against the petitioner and other accused. After completion of the
investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance in C.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.III (CCIW), Madurai. While pending for
framing of charges, the petitioner and other accused persons filed
petitions to discharge them from the charges. Insofar as the
discharge petition of the petitioner is concerned, the trial Court
dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision
is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that no offence is made out as against the petitioner and
there is absolutely no material to attract any of the offence as
against the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. The entire
charges originated from passing resolution dated 06.04.2009 to
claim an unclaimed insurance amount of Rs.21,95,403.37/-,
wherein the signature of the petitioner was forged and the same
was established by sending it for expert opinion. Though the enquiry
officer concluded that the signatures found in the resolution were
forged one, the petitioner has been wrongly implicated as an
accused in the final report by citing the signature found in three
cheques. In fact, the enquiry officer also found that the petitioner
had signed in those cheques in good faith and only the Secretary of
the Society misappropriated the amount and the petitioner was not
at all responsible for the said misappropriation. The petitioner was
in charge of the Special Officer and he has to sign the cheques
along with the Secretary of the Society for the withdrawal of money
from the Central Bank of the Co-operative Society for day-to-day
administration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
further submit that the trial Court mechanically dismissed the
discharge petition of the petitioner by taking two views in similar
facts in respect of the third accused on the ground that as per the
enquiry report submitted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Societies Act, Accused No.8 signed the documents
prepared by the first accused without taking care and discharged
him. Whereas, the trial Court dismissed the discharge petition of the
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner signed the cheques and
as such, it has to be tested during the trial. When there is
absolutely no direct evidence as against the petitioner in
misappropriation of any amount by signing the cheque that too with
bona fide intention, he cannot be ordered to face the ordeal of a
trial. No one had spoken against the petitioner in order to attract
any offence on record. Therefore, no charge can be substantiated as
against the petitioner.
5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court
in M.Soundarajan and another Vs. Deputy Superintendent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
Police and others reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 32413, in
which, this Court relied upon the Circular issued by the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Chennai in R.C.No.228696/19/CP1, dated
11.12.1991 and quashed the entire proceedings. He also relied
upon another Judgment of this Court in Surendran Vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police and others reported in 2019 SCC
Online Mad 34898, in which this Court held that neither in the
enquiry report, which came into existence after an enquiry was
conducted under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act nor in
161 statement which was recorded from the enquiry officer, there
was even a scrap of allegation made against the petitioner.
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent would submit that admittedly, the
petitioner signed three cheques along with the Secretary of the
Society to the tune of Rs.21,95,403.37/- and the said amount was
misappropriated by the accused. Though the petitioner's signature
in the resolution was found to be forged one, he issued cheques
along with the Secretary for the abovesaid sum and
misappropriated the said amount. Whether it was issued in good
faith or not is to be decided only during the trial. Therefore, the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
Court rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner,
and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8.The case of the prosecution is that the Government of
Tamil Nadu with a view to ameliorate the sufferings of the
agriculturists during crop failure introduced a laudable scheme of
covering crop failure through an insurance package. The
Government entered into a tie-up with National Agricultural
Insurance Corporation. Such insurance coverage is compulsory in
cases of agriculturists who obtained a loan from the Primary
Agricultural Cooperative credit society and for others it is optional.
On the basis of the premium paid by the agriculturists, for the
failure of crops during the year 2007-2008, the National Agricultural
Insurance Corporation released funds to the Madurai District Central
Cooperative Bank, the Nodal Bank a sum of Rs.1,27,83,095.18 for
the purpose of disbursing the insurance amount to the farmers who
have insured their crops and sustained damages due to the drought
situation the Valandur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
paid a sum of Rs.1,34,711/- as premium collected from the
members of the Society into the Central Co-operative Bank and as
such the members of the Society is eligible to get Rs.6,81,490.16.
But the Officials of the Bank and the Society entered into a criminal
conspiracy and created and fabricated records as though the Society
is entitled to receive Rs.25,66,539/- and on receiving,
misappropriated the same. On being unearthed, enquiry under
section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Act was conducted and
based on the enquiry report, a complaint was lodged and a case in
Crime No.2 of 2015 under sections 403, 406, 498, 409, 467, 468,
477A, 201, 120(B) IPC was registered and on completion of
investigation, charge sheet was laid before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No. III (CCIW) was lodged by arraying 10 accused and
the Petitioner herein was arrayed as Accused No.9. The learned
Judicial Magistrate No.III took cognizance of the final report in
C.C.No.7 of 2018 and the trial is pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No. III, Madurai.
9.Before framing of charges, the petitioner filed a
petition to discharge him on the ground that he was serving as an
in-charge Special Officer only for a period of 13 months from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
17.09.2008 to 08.10.2010 in addition to his main posting as Special
Officer at Usilampatti. An enquiry under Section 81 of the Co-
operative Societies Act was conducted, and the allegation was that
he contrived to pass a resolution authorizing the Secretary of the
Society to receive and disburse cash. Further, he signed unfilled
three cheques and gave it to the Secretary of the Society with
criminal intention and taking advantage of the signed cheque
leaves, the accused had withdrawn a sum of Rs.21,95,403.37/- and
misappropriated the same. Though the signature found in the
resolution passed by the Society was a forged one, the petitioner
himself categorically admitted that he only signed three blank
cheques. Though he had taken a stand that those cheques were
issued in good faith in order to meet the future day-to-day
expenditures of the Society, the entire amount had been
misappropriated by the accused persons. Therefore, the act of
signing in the unfilled cheque leaves is not permitted in law or
statute. There is no circular instruction from the Department
permitting the petitioner to sign such blank cheques. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he never signed any cheque. Therefore,
the fact as to whether the petitioner intentionally signed for an
extraneous reason or in good faith as contended by him will be
tested only during the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
10.In the Circular issued by the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, dated 20.03.1991, it has been held that
“taking criminal action against the departmental officers holding
chief executive or administrative and other supervisory posts in the
Co-operatives who are involved vicarious has also been examined.
The departmental officers, working on foreign service terms in
Co-operative organizations, may not have the chance to scrutinize
each and every transaction of Society. Though they may have
overall control, they cannot be held criminally liable, for all the
criminal irregularities committed by the staff working under them.
Though they fail to check and scrutinize the accounts, etc., or
exercise effective control over subordinate staff, such failure may
not deserve criminal action. On the other hand, a failure of this
nature will be the failure to discharge their duties properly or
negligence, and this may be dealt with through disciplinary
proceedings. Hence, it is informed that the departmental officers
who are not directly involved in the frauds or misappropriations
need not be included as delinquents in a routine manner in the
inquiry reports or complaints filed with the police”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
11.Thus, it is clear that if failed to check and scrutinize
the accounts, etc., or exercise effective control over subordinate
staff, such a failure may not deserve criminal action. The failure to
discharge their duties properly or negligence may be dealt with
through disciplinary proceedings. Whereas, in the case on hand, the
petitioner only signed the cheques and the said amount was
misappropriated by all the accused persons. Therefore, the Circular
or the Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand.
12.The law relating to interfering with the criminal
proceedings is well settled that only in the rarest of rare cases,
there shall be an interference when the complaint itself is inherently
improbable and palpably absurd. The action of the petitioner in
having signed in blank cheque leaves enable the other accused to
have misappropriated the amount which was intended for the poor
agriculturists to cover their loss due to the seasonal vagaries with
impunity and the criminal complicity on the part of the petitioner
herein in the most heinous crime can be adjudged only during the
trial. No one in the banking sector will leave signed blank cheques
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
with their subordinates and claim immunity for their action on the
precept of 'good faith' which is not sustainable by any breath of
imagination. The act will not absolve the petitioner herein from
criminal complicity as the accused by entering into criminal
conspiracy have caused havoc by misappropriating such a huge
amount for their personal enrichment. The law s well settled that
the disputed questions of facts need to be addressed and resolved
only during the trial. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the
petition seeking discharge of the petitioner and this Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and the
Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
13.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
However, considering the age of the petitioner, this Court is inclined
to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed
with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing an
appropriate application. However, the petitioner shall be present
before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing
charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of
passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III (CCIW),
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CCIW, Police Station,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.110 of 2019
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
