Madras High Court
Mr.P.Jayakuamr. (60/M) vs / on 4 March, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.30355 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.30355 of 2024
& Crl.M.P.No.17191 of 2024
1. Mr.P.Jayakuamr. (60/M),
S/o.Pandurangan,
Wireman and Generator Operator,
Tiruvannamalai Municipality,
Residing at No.120/25, Old Karkana Street,
Thiruvannamalai – 606 601. ... Petitioner No.1/Accused No.4
2. Mr.S.Saravanan, (51/M),
S/o.Sammantham,
Electrician and Generator Operator,
Tiruvannamalai Municipality,
Residing at No.419, Kulathumettu Street,
Nallavanpalayam,
Thiruvannamalai – 606 603. ... Petitioner No.2/Accused No.5
/versus/
State Rep. by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Tiruvannamalai Detachments.
(Crime No.8 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30355 of 2024
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records relating to in Spl.Case No.4 of 2018 on the file of the
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Court, Thiruvannamalai and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Ramprakash Rajagopal
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused A4 & A5 facing trial in Special
Case.No.4/2018 for offences under Sections 120 (B), 465, 468, 471, 409 of
I.P.C and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) (d) of the P.C Act had filed this quash
petition.
2. The contention of the petitioners are that, the 1st petitioner is a
Wireman-cum-Generator Operator and the 2nd petitioner is an Electrician-cum-
Generator Operator. The case projected against them is that, during the period
from 07.09.2011 to 31.03.2014 and from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014, the
petitioners, who were employed in the Tiruvannamalai Township and posted at
the Ulagalabadi Pick Up Dam Head Water Pumping Station conspired with A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
to A3. They made a false claim that diesel was purchased and used in
Generators (110 KVA and 200 KVA) whenever there was power cuts for
pumping station and distribution of the water in the water station. Hence, they
had misappropriated the public funds to a tune of Rs.22,76,651/-.
3. The FIR against the petitioners are that a preliminary enquiry
was conducted and thereafter, a case has been registered. The complaint
against the petitioners and other accused is that they misappropriated the funds
allotted for the purchase of diesel for the generators installed at Water pumping
Station, Ulagalapadi Pick up Dam, Thennrampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai
District. Further, the preliminary enquiry conducted that A1 had purchased a
large quantity of diesel from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)
dealer at Tiruvannamalai with the association of A2 and A3, on a credit basis
during the period from 01.05.2012 to 31.10.2013 and created false utilisation
entries in the log books of Ulagalapadi pick up dam Head Water Pumping
Station and shown huge purchase of diesel from the Petrol bunk to the pumping
Station on different dates and fraudulently sold to unknown agency and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
thereby, caused a wrongful loss to the Municipal exchequer and wrongful gain
to the accused persons to a tune of Rs.21,45,894/-. Though, the case proceeds
from a preliminary inquiry, there are no details about who conducted the
enquiry and the preliminary inquiry does not form part of the final report.
4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in
the charge sheet, it is projected that the second petitioner, knowingly in
association with the first petitioner, recorded false power cut hours in the log
books, falsely recorded the log books, drawn excess diesel for the power cut
hours and disposed of the diesel in association with other accused which is
contra to the F.I.R. He further submitted that, in this case, it is not clear
whether booking of diesel without its utilisation or converting the diesel into
money and misappropriation of the same. He also further submitted that, in
this case, L.W.5, the BPCL dealer had mentioned that the persons from
Municipality used to come and fill the diesel in 35-litre cans and he used to
submit the accounts and they would issue cheque directly to the petrol bunk for
the purchase of diesel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
5. Further, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners rely
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K.R.Purushothaman vs State Of
Kerala reported in AIR 2005 SC 35, held that for the offences under Section
13(1) (c) & (d) of P.C Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the
accused has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property entrusted
to him or under his control as a public servant. The entrustment of the property
is a necessary ingredient which is lacking in this case.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioners collecting a huge quantity
of diesel and converting to their own use would not arise. Hence, the
foundational facts of the case itself are doubtful and pray for quashing of the
case against them.
7. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondents submitted that, in this case, A1 was the Municipal Engineer who
passed away on 30.03.2014. A2 & A3 are Assistant Engineers of the
Tiruvannamalai Municipality and A4/1st petitioner is a Wireman-cum-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
Generator Operator, A5/ 2nd petitioner is a Electrician-cum-Generator Operator
at Tiruvannamalai Municipality. A1 was in-charge of Ulagalapadi Pick up
Dam Head Water pumping Station, Tiruvannamalai. A2 & A3 are Assistant
Engineers during the period 01.05.2012 to 31.10.2013 and A4 & A5 are
Generator Operators. For drawing diesel from Petrol Bunk, the petitioners
herein informed other accused A1 to A3 about the diesel requirements and on
their request A1 to A3 issued coupons to Vijayalakshmi Gopal Petrol Bunk
(L.W.5), where the required diesel would be collected and the utilisation will
be recorded. Later, it was found that there had been falsification of accounts
and wrong entires have been made with regard to power cuts and also
falsification of accounts has been made and they made used to run the
generators for long duration and projected the utilisation of the diesel purchase.
8. Further, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits
that, in this case, L.W.7, the Assistant of Tiruvannamalai Municipality had
given details about the false recording made by the petitioners herein, along
with the other accused and the details obtained from TANGEDCO and power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
interruption details were collected.
9. On comparison of the same, it is found that the petitioners were
made false records during the period from 01.05.2012 to 31.10.2013 and
misappropriated the diesel valued at Rs.17,18,581/-. Further, during
investigation, the statement of witness L.W.1 to L.W.25 recorded. L.W.1
speaks about the sanction accorded to A2 and A3 and L.W.2 speaks about the
sanction accorded to petitioners A4 & A5. The witnesses with regard to
registration of F.I.R, preliminary investigation, supply of diesel, details about
the duties and responsibility of the accused, recording of the power disruption
particulars, utilisation of diesel and the records collected from TANGEDCO
have all been spoken by relevant witnesses and charge sheet has been filed
along with documents.
10. On perusal of statement of witnesses and the material
produced, and after being satisfied that a prima facie case made out against the
petitioners, the charge sheet was taken on file, issued summons to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
petitioners and charges have been framed on 14.02.2019. He fairly submitted
that in this case, the delay is on the part of the prosecution since the witnesses
could not be produced. On the next hearing date i.e., 04.04.2025 possibility the
sanction witness L.W.1 and L.W.2 will be produced. Hence, there would not be
any delay on the side of the prosecution.
11. Considering the above submission, it is seen that the points
raised by the petitioners are factual which has to be decided during trial and not
in a quash application. As on date, there appears to be prima facie material
against the petitioners to proceed with the trial, the contention of the petitioners
are factual which can be decided only during the trial and not in the quash
application.
12. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
above petition. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
Index : Yes/No.
Neutral Citation : Yes/No.
bsm
To,
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Court, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Tiruvannamalai Detachments.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
bsm
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 01:28:35 pm )
