IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
P.J. Sebastian - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 2854 of 2022
Decided On : 29-06-2022
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A), 34, 120(B) - PC Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Bye-law of Co-operative Society
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as the President of a Co-operative Bank, was charged with misappropriation and cheating. The charges against the co-accused had abated. The prosecution alleged misappropriation of funds and misuse of official position by the petitioner and the co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any grave suspicion against the petitioner and that there was no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation. The court held that the continuation of the prosecution would result in an abuse of the process of law and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioner for misappropriation and cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that at the initial stage, the uncontroverted allegations must prima facie establish the offence. It also emphasized the requirement of mens rea and intention to accompany the culpable act or conduct of the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal M.C. was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
ORDER :
The prayer in this Crl.M.C. filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the following;
2. The petitioner stands chargesheeted as accused No. 2 in CC No. 344/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477(A) read with Sections 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Accused No.1 in this case died and therefore, the charges against him stood abated.
4. The petitioner was the President of the Service Co-operative Bank, Mankulam during the period from 1993 to 2002. Accused No. 1 was the Secretary-cum-Accountant of the Service Co-operative Bank. During the tenure of the petitioner, a petition was moved by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Idukki to the Superintendent of Police, Idukki seeking investigation in the anomalies stated to have been brought out in the audit of the Service Co-operative Bank, Mankulam during the year 1999 to 2000. Consequently, Crime Nos. 187/2002, 202/2004 and 43/2005 were registered at Munnar Police Station. Crime No. 202/2004 formed the foundation of the final report under challenge in this case.
5. The matter was referred to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau which registered VC No.13/2009 of VACB, Idukki. After completing the investigation, factual report alleging offences including offences coming under the PC Act, 1988 was filed before the Director of Vigilance. However, sanction was not accorded to prosecute accused No. 1 as provided in Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. Therefore, the VACB submitted final report alleging offences punishable under IPC against the petitioner and the other accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Devikulam.
6. The prosecution alleged that Sri. Shylajan (Accused No.1) the then Secretary-cum-Accountant of the Service Co-operative Bank, Mankulam and the petitioner, who was the President of the Bank jointly abused their official position as a bank employee and the President respectively of the bank misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,00,427/- with a fraudulent and dishonest intention and thereby cheated the bank. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the other accused misappropriated Rs.3,00,427/- being the sale proceeds of black pepper sold to one Sri. V.G. Eldho, a spice-merchant, by withdrawing the same from their joint account No. S-128 maintained in the name of the Mankulam Service Cooperative Bank in the Idukki District Co-operative Bank through cheque No. 19273 on 11.06.1999. The accused were alleged to have misused their official position as public servants. They jointly committed criminal breach of trust, forgery, falsification of account, thereby they cheated the bank.
7. The final report reveals that the petitioner and the other accused sold 1650.70 kgs of black pepper worth Rs. 3,00,427/- from the stock of the bank on 02.06.1999. The amount was credited to the joint account maintained by the petitioner and the accused No.1. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn through cheque No. 19273 dated 11.06.1999. The cheque was signed by the petitioner and accused No.1. This transaction was not entered in the day book, cash flow, cash book, ledger and general ledger etc. According to the prosecution, as per the bye-law of the Co-operative Society, all money transactions should be entered in the day book, cash flow, cash book, ledger and general ledger. But, the above transactions were not entered in those registers. The prosecution mainly relied on the statements of CW2 and CW3, the Audit Report, audit note, the audit certificate, the bye law of the bank and other documents relatin
Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka
State, by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S. Selvi and Another
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case with grave suspicion against the accused, and the element of mens rea and intention must accompany the culpable act or conduct of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the individual liability of the petitioner, as the Secretary of the cooperative society, for the misappropriation of funds and stock, despite the a....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence and entries in proving guilt in cases of misappropriation and falsification of accounts.
The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction, confirming that prima facie evidence supported the charges of forgery and misappropriation despite the petitioner's defenses.
The court affirmed that allegations of misappropriation and cheating warranted further investigation, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in assessing cognizable offences.
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.