Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of T.N., Appellant
Versus
T. Thulasingam and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 414-479 of 1992 (with Cri. M. P. Nos. 6147-6212, 5567-5632, 5779-5844, 6081-6146 and 5845-5910 of 1992, 3708-3768 of 1993 and 3810-76 of 1993)
Decided on 13-5-1994.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120-B - Criminal Procedure Cod2,1973 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 - Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(a - Identification of the Prisoners Act, 1920 - Section 2(b) - Claim any arrears of wages - Electrical Department - Electrical Department besides accused who died during trial of case accused were Electrical Supervisors were employed Electrical Supervisors accused were Charge Engineers accused were Lighting Inspectors accused were Temporary Time-keepers accused were Time-keepers accused were doing work clerks accused were clerks were Tax Collectors accused were Accountants Accounts Officer accused was Section Manager; accused was also Section Manager accused clerk accused were employed - Cashiers in Cash department accused were employed as Clerk in Cash Department accused was employed as Clerk in Cash Department accused were employed as Cash Department accused was employed in Revenue Department Assistant Revenue Officer accused were Clerks in Voucher Section accused Auditor and accused was Audit Assistant accused were accused was Chairman Taxation and Finance Committee accused and members of Taxation and Finance Committee accused Chairman of Accounts Committee accused were members of Accounts Committee accused were members Works Committee accused Chairman of Health Committee were members Health Committee accused were Councilors accused was Bill Collector Hindu Permanent Limited accused was a former Corporation of Madras –Held, Respective convictions and sentences for other charges as found by trial Court are upheld and their acquittal by High Court for those other charges was not justified- All public dignitaries themselves had become king-pin of criminal conspiracy to defraud Corporation of Madras Corporation when it was superseded was competent to grant sanction- It will noticed that here sanction had been given by superior authority namely Government itself which appointed special officer- Once sanction is granted superior authority it does not get invalidated- It could be invalid if sanction had been granted by authority subordinate to authority who had to grant sanction and in that case would have been subject to challenge- Court thus find that trial Court was right in holding that sanction was validly granted by competent authority Corporation who have died during pendency of these appeals- It is no doubt correct that appeals against them have abated and their acquittal by High Court cannot be technically interfered but having allowed these appeals and convicting respondents even on charge of conspiracy it would not be in interest of justice to permit legal heirs of deceased - accused persons to claim arrears of wages on ground that their acquittal has not been set aside because of abatement of appeals- charge of conspiracy against accused-respondents and deceased-accused was common same evidence which court have believed qua respondents is also directed against deceased accused circumstances it would be wholly unjust to permit legal heirs of deceased-accused to take advantage of their acquittal by High Court and claim huge amount of arrears of wages from Corporation- In order to do complete justice between parties court direct that legal heirs of deceased-accused whose acquittal could not be set aside due to intervention of death shall not be entitled - Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. :— These appeals arise from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 9th August, 1990 passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 840 to 855 of 1978, 867 of 1978, 881 to 885 of 1978, 887 of 1978, 889 to 913 of 1978, 916 of 1978, 923 to 937 of 1978, 943 of 1978 and 944 of 1978 and C.A. No. 156 of 1981 whereby the accused/appellant before the High Court were acquitted by the High Court.
2. All the accused, except accused 105 and 106 were either employed or associated with the Corporation of Madras; Accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 were working as Engineers in Electrical Department besides the 1st accused, who died during the trial of the case; accused 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were Electrical Supervisors; accused 11, 13, 14, and 15 were employed as Asstt. Electrical Supervisors; accused 16 and 17 were Charge Engineers; accused 18 and 19 were Lighting Inspectors, accused 20, 23 and 24 were Temporary Time-keepers; accused 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 37 were Time-keepers; accused 34 and 35 were A. 4 Clerks; accused 36 and 37 were doing the work of A.4 clerks; accused 38, 39, 40 and 41 were clerks; accused 42 and 43 were Tax Collectors; accused 44 and 49 were Accountants; accused 45 was the Asstt. Accounts Officer; accused 46 was the Section Manager; accused 47 was also the Section Manager, accused 48 was clerk in the C.A.D.; accused 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 were employed as Asstt. Cashiers in the Cash department; accused 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 were employed as Clerk in Cash Department, accused 66 was employed as Clerk in Cash Department; accused 67, 68, and 69 were employed as Golla in Cash Department; accused 70 was employed in the Revenue Department as Assistant Revenue Officer; accused 71 and 72 were Clerks in Voucher Section of C.A.D.; accused 73 was the L.F.Auditor and accused 74 was the Audit Assistant; accused 75 to accused 104 were Councillors; accused 75 was the Chairman of the Taxation and Finance Committee; accused 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 were members of the Taxation and Finance Committee; accused 84 was the Chairman of the Accounts Committee; accused 85 and 86 were members of the Accounts Committee; accused 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91 were the members of the Works Committee; accused 92 was the Chairman of the Health Committee; accused 93 and 94 were the members of the Health Committee; accused 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 were Councillors; accused 105 was the Bill Collector of Mylapoor Hindu Permanent Nidhi Limited and accused 106 was a former labourer of the Corporation of Madras.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants before the High Court along with the accused, who were acquitted by the Special Judge and the approvers P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 60 and three others (who died during trial) were the members of the conspiracy between April 1969 and November 1973 and they caused wrongful loss to the Corporation of Madras by preparation of fully bogus muster rolls and partially bogus muster rolls in pursuance of the said conspiracy and had the muster rolls passed for payment, obtained money from the treasury, misappropriated such amounts and did several acts of omission and commission in order to achieve the objects of conspiracy.
4. To unfold the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined 360 witnesses including 7 approvers. P. W. 1 and 2 were A.4 clerks in charge of issuing blank muster roll forms to the out-door officials for the preparation of muster rolls. Their predecessors were in A.4 seats, A.34 and A.35. A.36 and A.37 were Asstts. and were also doing the work of A.4 clerk. The blank muster rolls issued by the A.4 clerk to the outdoor officials which have to be filled up by the outdoor officials and have to be placed to the C.A.D. for being approved by the Engineer. The outdoor officials who process the muster rolls, are the supervisors, Asstt. Supervisors, and Charge Engineers besides others, P.W.5 (approver), A. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 23 were Electrical Supervis
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
