JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is listed today under the caption “For Clarification” at the instance of the Court.

2. Vide order dated 23.8.2021, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions. Pursuant to the said order, a letter has been received from the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, detailing certain aspects, which were not available/placed before the Court at the time when this Court had considered the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. In view of the changed circumstances, as is evident from the letter of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, the present petition is taken up again for consideration.

3. The case, as projected by the prosecution is that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate, who was the counsel on record for the claimant in MCOP No.911/2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, in which an award for a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants therein. The complaint emanated on the allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated the claim amount by causing impersonation of the claimants by some other persons.

4. When the case was taken up by this Court on 23.8.2021, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he has not committed any offence and that the misappropriation has been caused by his clerk and that to show his bona fide, the petitioner has made good the loss by depositing the entire amount.

5. Curiously, for the said stand taken by the petitioner, on instructions from the respondent, the learned Government Advocate also submitted that the petitioner has repaid the entire amount misappropriated and, therefore, he has no serious objection to the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. In furtherance to the said submissions and the stand taken by the respective parties, this Court, vide order dated 23.8.21, had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. It is to be pointed out that pursuant to the grant of anticipatory bail, a letter has been addressed to the Registry by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, in which it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the facts of the case by the petitioner has been totally misrepresented and that it is not a case in isolation in which the petitioner had misappropriated the amount of the claimants, but had indulged in such acts in more than 10 cases, the details of which have been tabulated by the learned Subordinate Judge in his communication dated 29.08.2021, which have been identified on the basis of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu W.P. No.12395/2021 and even FIR has been directed to be registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the Judicial Officer that inspite of directions issued by this Court for registration of FIR against the petitioner, the respondent was not inclined to register the FIR and only after a lapse of almost a month, after great persuasion and taking action, the FIR was registered.

7. It is further submitted through the said letter that the petitioner had swindled the compensation paid to very many claimants and had enjoyed the benefits without paying the same along with interest to the claimants and that the present payment, alleged to be made, is without interest, which fact has also not been placed before this Court at the time of grant of bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner had swindled more than Rs.22,70,751/- and the learned Judicial Officer has further gone on to state that the investigation has also not been done in a proper manner and in fact, no investigation has been done and the stand taken by the respondent is nothing but aiding the offender/petitioner to the detriment of the court and the judicial proceedings and it is in stark contravention of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court.

8. It is further evident from the said letter that the misappropriation, which is the subject matter of the present case, which is alle