Madras High Court
Dr.John Samuel vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2022
Dr.John Samuel ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
CBCID Police, Police Research Centre,
Chennai.
Cr.No.2/2001. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 401 r/w 397 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, to allow the above Criminal Revision and set aside the
order of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge of Kanchipuram at
Chengalpattu dt.18.2.2022 in Crl.A.No.16/2016, partly allowing the same and
partly confirming the findings and order of conviction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu in CC.No.495/2010 by order dt 21.04.2016
made against the petitioner herein and modifying the sentence therein and
acquit the appellant/Accused No.1 in toto.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srinivas, Senior Counsel for
Page No.1 of 31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2022
Ms.V.Mythili
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment
dated 18.02.2022 in Crl.A.No.16 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Chengalpet (lower appellate Court) confirming the judgment
dated 21.04.2016 in C.C.No.495 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet (trial Court).
2.The conviction and sentence of the trial Court are as follows:
Accused Offences Conviction and Sentence
A1 to A4 408, 465, 468, 471 & A1 to A4 sentenced to undergo two
477(A) r/w 109 IPC years Rigorous Imprisonment each
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in
default to undergo one month
Rigorous Imprisonment each.
A1 to A6 467 IPC Found Not Guilty
A5 & A6 408, 465, 468, 471 & Found Not Guilty
477A r/w 109 IPC
3.The conviction and sentence of the lower appellate Court are as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
follows:
Accused Conviction and Sentence Findings of Lower Appellate Court
of trial Court
A1 408, 465, 468, 471 & ● Conviction and Sentence of
477A r/w 109 IPC the trial Court for offence
under Sections 465, 468 &
471 IPC are set aside.
● Conviction and Sentence of
the trial Court for offence
under Sections 408 & 477A
r/w 109 IPC are modified to
one year for each offence.
Fine amount of Rs.1,000/-
for each offence is
confirmed.
A2, A3 & A4 408, 465, 468, 471 & Conviction and Sentence of the
477A r/w 109 IPC trial Court are set aside.
4.Case of the prosecution is that the Institute of Asian Studies (In short
“Institute”) is started for the purpose of understanding culture of Asia and to
propagate the glorious past literature and culture of Tamil Nadu to the rest of
India and Asia by giving them in English and other Asian languages. For its
functioning, it largely depends upon the funds from the State Government of
Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and the Central Government. The
petitioner/A1 served as Secretary-cum-Director of the Institute, A2 Office
Superintendent, A3 Accountant, A4 Junior Assistant, A5 Assistant and A6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Administrative Officer of the said Institute. On 16.03.1998, a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resources Development for the purpose of constructions of cultural
care centre within the campus of the Institute and first installment of Rs.2.5
lakhs also sent to the Institute by the Government of India. The petitioner/A1
sent a false report and utilization certificate to the Government of India as if
the construction was in good progress and forged photographs to confirm the
construction. Infact, there was no such construction. Further, the accounts
were cooked up and expenditure of Rs.9.13 lakhs was shown for the
construction of the said building. Thus, the petitioner/A1 misappropriated the
fund of Rs.2.5 lakhs of the said Institute. In the course of the same transaction,
the other accused namely A2 to A6 created documents to show expenditure
bills for the construction of the said building, forged bills, forged auditor report
for the year 1999-2000. The respondent Police/CBCID on collection of
evidence and materials filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Alandur against the petitioner/A1 for offence under Sections 408,
465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471 r/w 468 and 477A of IPC and against A2 to
A6 for offence under Sections 408 r/w 109, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471
r/w 468 and 477A IPC and the charge sheet had taken on file in C.C.No.455 of
2002. Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction and as per the orders of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, the case in C.C.No.455 of 2002
transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Chengalpet (trial
Court). During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW20 examined
and Exs.P1 to P66 marked. On the side of the defence, the 1 st petitioner
examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.D1 to D12. On conclusion of trial,
the trial Court convicted the accused and the lower appellate Court modified
the conviction and sentence as stated above.
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 submitted
that the petitioner/A1 who was the Secretary-cum-Director of the Institute,
misused the funds of Rs.2.5 lakhs submitted that the allegation of criminal
breach of trust is not correct. The amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs received by the
Institute on 25.05.1998 and it was deposited in the Canara Bank account of the
Institute on 26.05.1998 proved by the petitioner who examined himself as
DW1 and marked Exs.D3 & D5. Further, the petitioner had no dominant over
the funds of the Insitute, there is a Treasurer Mr.Mahalingam and Accountant
to the Institute. All the accounts were maintained by the Accountant,
thereafter, it is submitted to the Treasurer on their approval, it is submitted to
the Auditor/PW4, who prepares statement of account and thereafter, it comes
to the petitioner as Secretary-cum-Director to sign along with the Treasurer to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
file statement of accounts with the Income Tax Department. In this case, the
Treasurer having dominant over the funds of Institute neither called as witness
nor arrayed as accused. Infact, the Treasurer not even enquired, no
clarification sought and examined in this case, PW20/Investigating Officer
admits the same.
6.He further submitted that PW1 claiming himself to be Director and
Administrator of Institute lodged a complaint on 31.05.2001 to the Director
General of Police as though the petitioner submitted false utilization certificate
with cooked up accounts showing expenditure of Rs.9.13 lakhs incurred for
construction of cultural care centre including the amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs
received from the Government of India. The supporting documents along with
utilization certificate and photographs all forged. Further, PW1 stated that
Board Meeting Resolutions was created by the petitioner facilitating his
activities, hence, committed forgery. It is to be seen that there was a civil suit
filed by the petitioner against PW1 in O.S.No.271 of 2001 questioning the
interference of PW1 and his men in the affairs of the Institute. The learned
District Munsif held both PW1 and PW16, V.C.Kulanthaisamy both removed
from the Membership and from the Executive Committee, by a General Body
Meeting was held on 07.05.2001 and Dr.C.N.A.Parimalam appointed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Chairman, Dr.M.Israel as Vice-Chairman, Mr.S.Nallaperumal another Vice-
Chairman and the petitioner as Secretary and Dr.N.Mahalingam as Treasurer
along with members and Ex-Officio Members. Hence, both PW1 and PW16
have no competence to lodge any complaint or level any allegation against the
petitioner and others. This order challenged before the Subordinate Court and
District Court both negatived the plea of PW1 & PW16 confirming their
removal. Hence, PW1 is not competent to lodge a complaint.
7.The learned Senior Counsel referred to Ex.D13, a letter of
Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan, Former Director General of Police dated
31.05.2001 to Dr.R.Rajagopalan, Director General of Police requesting to
register a case and entrust the case to CBCID for investigation claiming that he
is one of the members of Governing body. Infact, Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan
not a Member of governing body as on 31.05.2001 and he was removed on
07.05.2001. The trial Court failed to consider these aspects. Further, it is
alleged that during January 1996, the petitioner purchased four grounds of land
in his wife name and the Institute amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs withdrawn from the
bank utilized for his personal gain. It is to be seen that in this case,
Government of India released initial grant of Rs.2.5 lakhs on 25.05.1998 and
the same deposited in Canara Bank account of the Institute on 26.05.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
The purchase of land by the wife of the petitioner was two years prior in the
year 1996.
8.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that other allegation that
the audit report for the year 1998-2000 marked as Ex.P10 contained Clauses 1
to 7 and when the same was presented by the petitioner during the meeting on
20.12.2000, Clauses 5 to 7 removed and Ex.P35 is relied upon. If that is the
case, PW1 and PW16 could have handed over the copies to the Chairman and
Treasurer and other members present in the meeting to show that Ex.P10
tinkered with. PW4's evidence is that the petitioner asked him to delete
Clauses 5 to 7 not supported with any other materials. Further, the Clause 5 to
7 pertains to the functioning of the Institute as observed by the Auditor and
there is no allegation of diversion of funds or any misappropriation, raising
audit objection and rectifying the same is common.
9.He further submitted that in this case, the trial Court acquitted A5 &
A6 and the lower appellate Court acquitted A2 to A4, the primary allegation
against them is that they created vouchers, prepared account statements as
though payments made to the building material suppliers, hardware stores and
transporters and payments to the watchmen, sweeper but not paid and vouchers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
raised. The petitioner as Secretary-cum-Director is having overall in-charge
and not involved in the day to day control and management of Institute
accounts and it is the concerned Accountant namely A3 and other staffs of the
Institute to maintain the accounts on day to day basis, only the annual financial
statements, the overall accounts comes to the petitioner. The petitioner as
authorized signatory signed the cheques to whose name it was drawn. If it is
not paid to the drawer of the cheque, the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
Further, the bank witness namely Canara Bank Manager/PW7 produced the
statement of accounts of the Institute, the petitioner and his wife. Nowhere it
is found that the amounts referred in the disputed cheques were credited or
withdrawn by the petitioner or someone on behalf of the petitioner. That being
so, then there is no question of diversion of funds and creation of false
accounts.
10.He further submitted that the Board Resolution dated 20.12.2000 not
produced. In this case, PW2/Accountant of the Institute in his evidence stated
that Rs.1,96,000/- was given to the petitioner and he admits that the accounts
were verified by one Narayanan, PRO and the petitioner. Further, the amount
of Rs.2.5 lakhs received from the Government of India credited in the general
account and from the general account, the salary, electricity charge, telephone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
expense, office expense, vehicle maintenance and other expenses paid. There
is no one to one correlation to show that the amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs diverted
and misused. PW2 admits that he had voluntarily resigned due to health
issues, later filed a case before the Labour Court. PW3/Administrative Officer
in his evidence admits that during the year 1998-1999, no anticipated grants
received by the Institute, hence, the Institute was under the financial
constraints and from the general account to tide over the regular maintenance
and salary to the employees paid. PW4/Auditor allegation against the
petitioner is that the signature in the report Ex.P35 is not by him. The admitted
signature of the petitioner and the disputed signature in the Auditor Report
submitted for comparison and the Handwriting Expert/PW18 gave report that
he is unable to compare the disputed signature, hence, the allegation that the
petitioner fraudulently affixed the signature of PW4/Auditor is not proved. In
fact Ex.P35 is a photostat copy and original not collected submitted for
comparison.
11.He further submitted that PW20/Investigating Officer admitted that
the petitioner was a Secretary-cum-Director of the Institute and he is not the
Treasurer and it was one Dr.Pollachi Mahalingam, the Treasurer and the
Chairman was Justice Krishna Iyer. He admits that he has not examined these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
two persons. Likewise, Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan, Former Director General
of Police not examined. The entire case originates on the letter of
Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan to the Director General of Police to take action.
Non examination of Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. He further submitted that on cumulative analysis of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is seen that there is no evidence to show that the
petitioner was handling the financial administration of the Institute
independently, to disprove the same, the petitioner examined himself as DW1
and marked Exs.D1 to D12. The prosecution not seriously challenged his
evidence and defence exhibits. Both the Courts below not considered the
evidence of petitioner and the defence documents produced by him. On the
other hand, the lower appellate Court admits that the amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs
received from the Government of India is accounted by receipt Ex.D8. If the
funds are diverted it ought to have been approved by the Board of Governance.
In present case, no such document produced but it came to conclusion that the
funds might have been diverted for other purpose but the alleged misuse is not
proved and it came to conclusion that it is true that the accounts not maintained
properly and the Investigating Officer/PW20 ought to have seized the cash
book and produced before the Court. On the same breadth, it held that the
petitioner having examined himself could have summoned the cash book to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
prove the funds were utilized properly. It is for the prosecution to prove the
case beyond all reasonable doubt and it is not by the petitioner to fill up the
latches of the prosecution. Likewise, the delay in registering the FIR not
explained. The lower appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the
forgery is not proved in this case against the petitioner and the petitioner
acquitted from the charges for offence under Sections 465, 468 & 471 IPC.
The only conclusion is that the petitioner was entrusted with the funds of the
Institute, hence, he had not discharged the same for the purpose it was to be
done. The evidence of the Accountant and Administrative Officer confirms
that there is no separte account for the grants received from the Government of
India of Rs.2.5 lakhs and all amounts credited to the general account and from
the general account, the Institute expenditure made. In such circumstances,
entrustment and misappropriation not proved. Likewise, the Accountant
maintained the accounts book and the Treasurer to monitor and approve the
same. The petitioner not made any entries in the books of account and further
reports submitted to the Government of India Exs.P1 & P2 not signed by the
petitioner. When the other accused acquitted of all charges, convicting the
petitioner is not proper and sustainable. Hence, he prayed for acquittal.
12.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
respondent Police filed counter and submitted that after completion of
investigation, on 18.07.2002 the respondent Police filed charge sheet for
offence under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471 r/w 468 and 477A
IPC against the petitioner and for offence under Sections 408 r/w 109, 465,
467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471 r/w 468 and 477A IPC against A2 to A6 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate Alandur and the same was taken on file
C.C.No.455 of 2002. Further, the case transferred to the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.I, Chengalpet and the same was taken on file in
C.C.No.495 of 2010. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 20
witnesses and marked 66 exhibits and no material object marked. On the side
of the defence, the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.D1 to
D12. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as follows:
Rank of Witnesses Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
PW1 Tr.Kodumudi He deposed that from 20.12.2000
Shanmugam he was a Member and Vice-
Chairman in Director of Institute of
Asian Studies on 31.03.2000 Board
of Government meeting was
conducted and the Auditor Report
was scrutinized by every member
on whom the report was given.
During such period the 1st accused
was in the position of
Administrative Director. Queries
were raised and the Director
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Rank of Witnesses Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
replied the facts contained in the
Audit report was certified by the
Auditor only. He suspects the
Director and the Board of
Governor removed Mr.John
Samuvel and he was appointed as
the Director. Hence, he lodged a
complaint before the respondent
Police and also handed over the
records (Ex.P1 to P4) Ex.P5
(Complaint).
PW2 Tr.Madhavan He deposed that he worked from
11.04.90 to 08.04.1999 as an
accountant and withdrew the cash
through Mr.Kolappan and handed
over to 1st accused for his personal
expenses. No building was
constructed, but salaries and other
expenses were paid from Rs.2.5
lakhs, which was received from the
General Government and some
facts. [Exs.P6 to 9]
PW3 Tr.Hariharan He disclosed that he worked as an
administrative officer from 1997 to
1999 and received funds of
Rs.2.5lakhs. No building was
constructed and confirmed 1st
accused has not followed the roads,
as it is formulated and some facts.
PW4 Tr.Srinivasan He disclosed that he has been
auditing the accounts of the
Institute of Asian Studies for the
past 10 years. He further says that
he has confirmed points 1 to 7 in
the Audit report dated 05.12.2000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Rank of Witnesses Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
and points 5,6 & 7relates to the
receipt and expenses of the
Institute. Further the 1st accused
personally approached him to
remove the points 5, 6 & 7 from
the report. He said no and he
denied the new report, which was
not authorized by him, as points 5,
6 & 7 were missing. Further, the
report shown by P.W.1 was only
one page and the other was
missing. He confirms that his
signature was forged in the new
reports and some facts. Ex.P 10 to
PW5 Tr.Sivakumar He deposed that he was working
with Mr.Seenivasan, Auditor to
submit the records to the
investigation officer to confirm the
signatures of his Senior to be
compared with the report submitted
by the 1st accused which is alleged
to be a forged one.
PW6 Tr.Kumar He deposed that he and one Balaji
were working as condense in the
MLA Hostel situated opposite to
CBCID office and confirmed to be
the witnesses for the enquiry
conducted with 1st accused and
obtaining the specimen signature
and some facts.
PW7 Tr.Christober John He deposed that he submitted the
records for the purpose of
investigations to the CBCID police
which consists of original and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Rank of Witnesses Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
Xerox copies and some facts.
Ex.P.15 to 13.
PW8 Tr.Nagaraj Deposed that he is the panchayat
President of Chemmencheri
confirmed that he was called on by
the CBCID police in their spot visit
to the Institute and identified 500
numbers damaged bricks and 6 feet
pit digged that too was not in
perfect condition for any purposes.
He signed as a witness in the
Mahazar and some facts.
PW9 Tr.Vishwanathan He deposed that he was witnessing
the investigation and enquiry
conducted byMr.Baskar,
Chelladurai, of 1st accused, and
specimen signature obtained from
the concerned and some facts.
PW10 Tr.Karunakaran He deposed that he was supplying
Jallys, bricks, and sand to the
Institute and since 1995-96 he has
not made any sales, and no bill was
raised and some facts.
PW11 Tr.Dhanasekaran He deposed that he was supplying
building materials in the name of
Virco Transport and proper receipt
was given against the
acknowledgment of payment from
06.04.1999 to 24.02.2000, 134
receipts showed by the CBCID was
not given by him and no supply
was made during the period, and
some facts.
PW12 Tr.Varkees He deposed that he worked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Rank of Witnesses Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
Mestri from 1995 to 1996 when the
building was constructed from
03.04.1999 to 31.07.1999 more
than 51 vouchers showed by
CBCID were not acknowledged by
one, as now work done and no
payment received by him. Since
1996 and some facts.
PW13 Tr.Ravindran Deposed that he is running a
hardware shop in the name of one
Sarma Enterprises and confirmed
that he was not made and supplies
to the Institute so for, and some
facts.
PW14 Tr.Bharathi Deposed that he confirmed that he
is working as a sweeper since 1996
and the receipt, dated 05.05.1999,
05.06.1999 and 05.07.1999 is a
false one, and no payment was
received by him and his signature
was forged and some facts.
PW15 Tr.Ganayyan Deposed that he was working as a
watchman at the Institute and he
left the job before 1999 and the
vouchers dated 05.05.1999 and
05.06.1999 and 05.07.1999 as a
forged one, no payment was
received by him and some facts.
PW16 Dr.Kuzhandhai Samy Deposed that he did not receive
any proper reply from the 1st
accused when raised queried on the
Audit report submitted and
confirmed the removal of 1st
accused and the complaint
registered by P.W.1 in the CBCID
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Rank of Witnesses Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
for investigation.
PW17 Tr.Nagarajan He deposed that he took up a photo
at Institute of Asian Studies
Campus at Chemmancerry and
handed over two photos with
negative to CBCID and some facts.
PW18 Tr.Kasi Deposed that he has confirmed the
signature submitted for
handwriting verification and
document scrutinization under
document No. Doc. 126/2002,
dated 07.06.2002. Ex.P.36 to 40.
PW19 Tr.Sivaveliyappan, Deposed that he received the
Inspector complaint and registered the FIR in
Cr.No.02 of 2001.
PW20 Tr.Moorthy, DSP Deposed that he took up the case
for investigation and examined the
witnesses, verified the records
obtaining the opinion from the
Document expert After completion
of an elaborate and detailed
investigation, he filed a final report
before the concerned court in
accordance with the law.
On conclusion of trial, the trial Court by judgment dated 21.04.2016 convicted
the petitioner/A1 and A2 to A4 as stated above and acquitted A5 & A6.
Challenging the judgment of conviction, the petitioner/A1 and A2 to A4
preferred appeals before the lower appellate Court in Crl.A.Nos.16 to 19 of
2016 and the lower appellate Court by judgment, dated 18.02.2022 allowed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
appeals filed by A2 to A4 in Crl.A.Nos.17, 18 & 19 of 2016 and partly allowed
the appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.16 of 2016, as stated above.
13.He further submitted that the lower appellate Court confirmed that
the funds of the Central Government to the extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs was given to
the Institute of Asian Studies and deposited in Canara Bank Account as shown
in Ex.D4 entry dated 26.05.1998. During trial, Mr.Madhavan/PW2,
Accountant of the Institute testified that he maintained the Institute Account,
and audits conducted annually from April to September. He stated that a sum
of Rs.1.96 lakhs in the form of cheque was handed over to the petitioner/A1,
which was noted in page 70 of the account book marked as Exs.P7 & P8. This
cheque issued to Kollapan, who then purchased a demand draft for the same
amount in the name of Neelankanda lyer, who claimed to be the owner of the
house which was purchased on the same day by the petitioner/A1. The lower
appellate Court finding is that PW20/Investigating Officer who filed charge
sheet, clearly stated in his evidence that the petitioner submitted a false
utilization certificate for grants to the Ministry of Human Resources and
fabricated false vouchers for the amount spent for construction of the building.
He also stated that during investigation, he found that the Ministry of Human
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Resources funds diverted to the general fund, which was used for other
purposes, rather than properly utilized for the intended purpose. The lower
appellate Court found the petitioner took Rs.1,96,000/- of the grants received
from the Central Government for the construction of cultural center building.
The petitioner misused his position and used the amount entrusted to him to
purchase property in his name and the name of his wife. The lower appellate
Court rightly observed that the grant of Rs.2.5 lakhs is the first installment
released by the Department of Culture, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, is to construct a building in the Institute of Asian studies. From
order, it clearly noticed that the amount not used for the construction of the
building. The petitioner being the Secretary-cum-Director of the Institute
should have used this amount for the construction of the building but he
utilized that amount for other purposes. The direction given under grant order
not followed misused by the petitioner, hence, misappropriation and criminal
breach of trust proved against the petitioner.
14.He further submitted that PW2 during his cross examination stated
that at the time of the grant of Rs.2.5 lakhs for the construction of the Building
in the Institute, the Institute was in financial constraint and as per instruction of
the petitioner the above amount utilized for meeting out the other expenses like
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
salary, electric charges, and phone bills. Hence, it is clearly shows that being
the Director of the Institute, the petitioner committed criminal breach of trust
with that amount. Further, PW2 the Accountant in Institute of Asian Studies,
terminated from the office since he was not convenient to the petitioner. PW2
deposed that the petitioner received the fund which was in the account of the
Institute. PW3/Administrative Officer deposed that he paid for the plan
sanction to the panchayat for the proposed building. PW4/Auditor confirmed
through Ex.P10 a sum of Rs.14,64,120/- though was gifted to the Institute, no
proper account was maintained for the said amount. Further confirmed that in
Clause 6 of the report (Ex.P10), the receipts by the Institute for various
expenditure are not proper. PW18 is the forensic expert who examined the
signatures in the vouchers and he was unable to come to a conclusion and
issued a report (Ex.P54). PW1/Successor to the petitioner and PW16/Vice
Chairman of the Institute confirmed about Ex.P13 the Audit report and the
statement annexed Ex.P35. Both are in variance and the report submitted by
the petitioner for utilization of Rs.2.5 lakhs received from the Government of
India had sent a report dated 18.07.2000 (Ex.P1) showing Rs.9.13 lakhs spent
is with false particulars. The Investigating Officer collected all these
documents and had produced before the trial Court. The trial Court on the
evidence of the witnesses and documents produced rightly convicted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
accused A1 to A4, thereafter, in appeal, the lower appellate Court acquitted A2
to A4 and convicted the petitioner/A1 by independent assessment of evidence
and materials. Thus, the petitioner misappropriated the fund sanctioned by the
Central Government for the construction of the building in the Institute by
creating false documents and vouchers in turn falsifying the accounts of the
Institute proved and the petitioner committed offence under Sections 408 and
477A of IPC and prayed for dismissal.
15.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
16.It is seen that the petitioner Founder Secretary and Director of the
Institute of Asian Studies which was formed in the year 1982, thereafter, the
petitioner was a Member and Director and later he was appointed as Secretary-
cum-Director from the year 1996. Since PW2 was absenting himself often and
not performed his duty properly, he was asked to resign and he gave
resignation letter (Ex.D1) stating that he got himself attached to Siva Shankar
Baba, a Swamiji and for personal reasons, he wanted to resign. This being so,
PW2 made a turn around filed a case before the Labour Court questioning his
termination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
17.The primary allegation is that the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resources Development on 16.03.1998 sanctioned Rs.10 lakhs for
construction of cultural care centre and the first installment of Rs.2.5 lakhs
released on 25.05.1998. According to the prosecution, the first installment of
Rs.2.5 lakhs was misappropriated and diverted by the petitioner for his own
use. The transaction of the year 1996 projected against the petitioner it is
recorded that petitioner received the amount of Rs.45,100/-, Rs.93,600/- and
Rs.62,000/- through A4, an Employee of the Institute. It is to be noted that the
Central Government grant was in the year 1998. A4 handed over the cash to
the petitioner in the year 1996, there cannot be any correlation. PW2 stated
that the amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs received from the Government of India not
used for any construction work in the Institute, but it was utilized for paying
the salary, electricity charges, telephone charges and other expenses of the
Institute. This is further confirmed by PW3, Administrative Officer that for
the year 1998-1999, no grant received from the Central Government, hence,
the Institute was in financial crisis. Added to it, all the receipts to the Institute
deposited/credited in the general account is confirmed by PW2/Accountant,
PW3/Administrative Officer, PW7/Manager of Canara Bank, statement of
bank account and ledger account. From the ledger account produced, it is seen
that the payments were made to tide over the financial crisis of the Institute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
There is no diversion or misappropriation for the petitioner's personal gain.
PW4, Auditor's evidence is that Ex.P10 is the statement of account for the year
1999-2000. The petitioner requested PW4 to delete Clauses 5, 6 & 7 and in
Ex.P35, these Clauses not found. On comparison of Exs.P10, P13 & P35, it is
seen that in Ex.P10, Clause 5 is with regard to donation received from various
individuals and Clause 6 is the expense vouchers produced and Clause 7 is the
collection from the museum. PW4, Auditor's statement is that the signature
found in Ex.P35 is not that of him. PW18, Handwriting Expert confirms that
Ex.P35 is a photostat copy and no opinion could be given. Further, in Ex.P13,
it is seen that the Auditor prepared the statement, signed the same which is
approved, authenticated and signed by the Chairman Mr.Krishna Iyer, the
petitioner as Secretary and the Treasurer Dr.Pollachi Mahalingam. All
approved the financial statements. If there is any discrepancy in the financial
statement between Exs.P10 & P35, the Investigating Officer/PW20 ought to
have confronted these documents to the Chairman and Treasurer but not done
so. The entire case rest on these three documents. Added to it, Ex.P1 is the
report submitted to the Government of India with the utility certificate with
relevant documents and Ex.P2 photos, it is confirmed Exs.P1 & P2 not
prepared or signed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
18.In this case, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.271 of 2001
against PW1 & PW16 removing them from the membership of the Institute
and restraining PW1, PW16 and others not to interfere with functioning of the
petitioner as Secretary of the Institute. On 21.08.2001, the suit decreed in
favour of the petitioner. Earlier to it, interim order passed in I.A.No.1109 of
2001 in O.S.No.271 of 2001, against which, PW1 filed C.M.A.No.12 of 2001
before the Subordinate Court, Chengalpet dismissed, against which, preferred
an appeal before the District Court and the same was also dismissed. Thus, the
removal of PW1 & PW16 and others confirmed, thereafter, new Board of
Governors elected including the petitioner as Secretary. It is to be seen that the
Treasurer Dr.Pollachi Mahalingam re-elected and continued. After removing
from the Institute and without any authority, the complaint (Ex.P5) filed on
31.05.2001.
19.It is seen that in this case, on 07.05.2001, a General Body Meeting
was held by the Institute, in which, the appointment of PW1 to administer the
Institute deliberated and found that the members of the Board of Governance
who have not even paid the annual membership fee, had appointed PW1 as
Director for administration of the Institute on 20.12.2000 and followed it by
another meeting on 05.02.2001. Since both the meetings held without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
authority, the same recalled and Dr.C.N.A.Parimalam elected as Chairman,
Dr.M.Israel as Vice-Chairman, Mr.S.Nalla Perumal as Vice-Chairman,
Dr.G.John Samuel as Secretary/petitioner, Dr.N.Mahalingam as Treasurer and
nine persons elected as Members and three persons elected as Ex-Officio
Members and resolution passed to that effect. After 07.05.2001, PW1, PW16
and Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan, Former Director General of Police have
nothing to do with the Institute. Neither they are Members nor Office Bearers
or Board of Governors of the Institute, their removal not challenged. But
without any authority, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P5) dated 31.05.2001 and
Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan, Former Director General of Police (Ex.D13)
lodged a complaint dated 31.05.2001.
20.It is confirmed that there was rivalry between two groups viz., PW1,
PW16 and Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan, Former Director General of Police on
one side and the petitioner and others on the other side. This leads to lodging
of complaint and due to the position held by Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan,
Former Director General of Police, the complaint got magnified and the case
entrusted to the respondent/CBCID. The basis of the complaint is that the first
installment of Rs.2.5 lakhs received from the Central Government
misappropriated by the petitioner for which the transaction of the year 1996 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
attempted to be correlated. By no stretch of imagination it cannot be termed as
misappropriation. Further, the evidence of PW2/Accountant,
PW3/Administrative Officer and PW4/Auditor confirmed that there is only one
general account, in which, all the incomes credited and expenditures debited.
The evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 confirmed that during the period 1999-
2000, there was no grant and the Institute was in financial crises and payments
were made for salary, electricity charges and other expenses. Thus, the amount
utilized only for the Institute and not for any other purpose. As regards the
other witnesses which are projected for creating vouchers for building
materials and other expenses, the petitioner, as Secretary, is overall In-charge
of the Institute; financial aspects have been entrusted to Accountant and
thereafter, placed to the Treasurer who approves the same. The petitioner, as
Secretary, is only a signing authority and none of the witnesses including the
bank witness stated anything that the petitioner as a signing authority received
the money for his own use. The Institute works under a system and each
officers assigned specific work with responsibility. In the normal course, the
cash book, ledger and records are being maintained in the office, based on
which, the annual financial statements prepared. PW4, Auditor admitted that
he verified the documents and prepared the annual financial statements. The
alleged removal of Clauses 5 to 7 in the draft Audit Report straight away
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
cannot be prepared with criminality unless there is any specific instance of
misuse or misappropriation of funds. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a person
who maintained the books of accounts, ledgers, cash registers or vouchers.
Hence, making false entry or omission or alteration in any such documents
does not arise. In this case, all other accused acquitted, hence, there can be no
conspiracy or abetment.
21.Likewise, entrustment of grant of Rs.2.5 lakhs credited in the bank
account of Institute on 25.05.1998 is admitted by PW2/Accountant,
PW3/Administrative Officer, PW4/Auditor and PW7/Bank Manager. None of
the witnesses stated that the petitioner was exclusively entrusted with this
amount and he misappropriated and diverted to his own use utmost it was used
for the benefit of the Institute.
22.The trial Court convicted the petitioner and A2 to A4 for offence
under Sections 408, 465, 468, 471 & 477(A) r/w 109 IPC but the lower
appellate Court acquitted the petitioner and other accused from the charges of
forgery and creation of forged records and acquitted A2 to A4 from all charges.
It is seen that the Courts below not considered the evidence of the petitioner
who examined himself as DW1 and produced Exs.D1 to D15 and not adverted
to. Further, PW20/Investigating Officer admits that Ex.P35 is a photostat copy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
and the ledgers and Registers of the Institute not produced in this case. The
lower appellate Court gives a finding that the petitioner having examined
himself would have summoned cash book to prove the funds utilized properly,
will not be a proper reason. It is the duty of prosecution to produce the ledgers
and Registers to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable
doubt. In this case, no Central Government officials examined to prove
receipts of Exs.P1 & P2 and believed it to be true, and released further funds.
Added to it, Exs.P1 & P2 not prepared or signed by the petitioner. The
petitioner depositing the amount in Canara Bank account of the Institute is
confirmed by Exs.D3 & D5 and also by PW7/Bank Manager.
23.In view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to
prove the case against the petitioner for offence under Sections 408 & 477A
r/w 109 IPC and both Courts below not considered the evidence and materials
produced in right perspective as per law. Hence, the findings of the Courts
below are perverse, unsustainable, needs to be interfered.
24.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed setting
aside the judgment dated 21.04.2016 in C.C.No.495 of 2010 passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet and the judgment dated
18.02.2022 in Crl.A.No.16 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Chengalpet. The petitioner is acquitted from all charges. Fine amount
if any paid shall be refunded. Bail bond if any executed shall stand cancelled.
08.10.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chengalpet.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Chengalpet.
3.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID Police, Police Research Centre,
Chennai.
4.The Central Prison,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
Coimbatore.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
08.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 04:08:47 pm )
