Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Duraikannu & Others - Appellant
Versus
State, rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Kancheepuram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 465, 482, 486, 495 & 516 of 2009
Decided On : 01-03-2018
For the Appellants :V. Balu, Auxiliapeter, R. Srinivasan, G. Dhamodaran, J. Srinivasan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 468, 471, 419, 420 – Distress Relief Fund – Delay – Applications purported to be from the widows of Vanathiyan son of Santhanam, Munian son of Poogan, Gajendran son of Muthan of Mogulvadi village, Maduranthagam Taluk enclosing the death extract of the above said persons signed by Thiru.S.Kalaiarasu, Village Administrative Officer of Mogulvadi Village, Maduranthagam Taluk was received by Thiru.Deek.Ramasamy the Tahsildhar, Distress Relief Scheme, Maduranthagam. – He processed the application and send the same to Devarajan [A1], Revenue Inspector for enquiry and report. – The said Devarajan on receipt of the applications, recommended to sanction the Distress Relief of Rs.5,000/- to each of the applicants. – Since there was delay in making the applications, Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar addressed a letter to the District Collector, Chennai, requesting him to condone the delay in preferring the application seeking Distress Relief Fund. – Considering the request, the District Collector has issued proceedings condoning the delay. – Thereafter, Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar has sanctioned the relief amount to the three appellants A5 to A7 who claim themselves as widows of Vanathiyan, Munniyan and Gajendaran. – Held, Prosecution case against A5 to A7 are not proved beyond doubt – There is no material evidence to show they conspired with A1 to A4. – No doubt, they have gone to Taluk Office and the Bank to receive the cheque, but it is due to their illiteracy and lack of knowledge that they are impersonating someone else. – The evidence of PW.7 reveals their innocence and how A4 had exploited their innocence promising financial assistance. – Under these circumstances, this court is not able to find any mens rea on the part of the appellants A5 to A7 in the Crime. – Hence their Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2009 are allowed. – Though it is contended that the evidence of PW.17 and his report of Ex.P.23 has to be looked sceptically, since PW.17 is also privy to the Crime. – This Court finds that neither the prosecution nor the trial Court has found that PW.17 had any mensrea in the scheme of crime committed by the appellants herein. – Therefore, when the report is substantially corroborated by other documentary evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the PW.17 or to reject his report Ex.P.23. – Impersonation part, the role of A4 is explicitly spoken by PW.7 Pachaiammal. – The accused A-1 to A-3 who are supposed to verify the genuineness of the applications have failed to verify, contrarily they have created documents with false details and forged records, to get the distress relief fund of Rs.15,000/- by impersonation. – A5 to A7 had fallen prey to the false promise extended by A-4 Murugesan. Since, he is dead pending appeal, his appeal is abated whereas A1 to A3 who have knowingly forwarded fake application with false records and deceitfully encashed three cheques for total sum of Rs.15,000/- are found guilty of offence charged their appeals in Crl.A.No.482, 465 and 486 of 2009 are dismissed. – Order Accordingly
1. These batch of appeals are preferred by the accused who were held guilty in Special C.C.No.3 of 2000, on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengapattu vide judgment dated 29.07.2009.
2. On 30.08.1994 three applications purported to be from the widows of Vanathiyan son of Santhanam, Munian son of Poogan, Gajendran son of Muthan of Mogulvadi village, Maduranthagam Taluk enclosing the death extract of the above said persons signed by Thiru.S.Kalaiarasu, Village Administrative Officer of Mogulvadi Village, Maduranthagam Taluk was received by Thiru.Deek.Ramasamy the Tahsildhar, Distress Relief Scheme, Maduranthagam. He processed the application and send the same to Devarajan [A1], Revenue Inspector for enquiry and report. The said Devarajan on receipt of the applications, recommended to sanction the Distress Relief of Rs.5,000/- to each of the applicants. Since there was delay in making the applications, Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar addressed a letter to the District Collector, Chennai, requesting him to condone the delay in preferring the application seeking Distress Relief Fund. Considering the request, the District Collector has issued proceedings condoning the delay. Thereafter, Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar has sanctioned the relief amount to the three appellants A5 to A7 who claim themselves as widows of Vanathiyan, Munniyan and Gajendaran.
3. Thiru.V.Narayanan Tahsildhar succeeded Thiru.Deek Ramasamy as Tahsildhar of Maduranthagam Taluk during September 1995. Pursuant to the sanction order issued by the District Collector cheques were issued for Rs.5,000/- to each of the applicants, in presence of P.Murugasan, Village Assistant who has identified the claimants, later it as found that the claimants who received the distress relief fund are not widows of Vanathiyan, Munnaiyan, Gajendaran. In fact these three persons are alive and the death extract issued that they were died during July/August 1993 is false. The fictitious entry had been made in the death register as if the above said persons were died during July/August 1993. Thiru.Duraikannu [A-2] who was the Village Administrative Officer of Mogulvadi Village, during that relevant point of time had made the false entry in the death register with connivance of his Village Assistant showing him as the informer for the death. After applying for Distress Relief Fund, these accused have arranged three persons namely Selvi wife of Fancis, Thiru.Kannammal wife of Kanniappan and Thiru.Malliga wife of Sankaran to impersonate as widow of Vanathaiyan, Munniyan and Gajendaran to receive the Distress Relief Fund. Accordingly, these three ladies have gone to Bank of India, Maduranthagam having received the cheque and encashed the same. The information as found in the First Information Report indicates that after giving Rs.150/- to each of the ladies, the remaining money has been taken away by Duraikannu [A-2] and Murugesan [A-4] thus the totally Rs.15,000/- has been cheated by the accused persons. Thus, pursuant to the conspiracy A1 to A7 had cheated the Government by producing false death extract by creating false entry in the death register and by impersonation.
4. Based on the First Information Report, the case was registered on 23.05.1996. The prosecution after conducted investigation, had laid final report as against appellants Thiru.Devarajan [A1] Revenue Inspector, Maduranthagam, Duraikannu [A2] Village Administrative Officer, Mogulvadi village, Kalaiarasu [A3] Village Administrative Officer, Mogulvadi Village, Murugasan [A4] Village Assistant Mogulvadi Village, Selvi @ Chittak [A5], Kannammal @ Panjali [A6] and Malliga [A7].
5. While A1 to A4 are public servants A5 to A7 are private individuals. Based on the final report, the trial Court has farmed charges against A1 to A7 under Section 120-B r/w 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC, 419 IPC an
