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 acquittal of the President. The Court also considered the modification of the period of sentence based on the petitioner's age and medical history.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 23.06.2020 in Crl.A.No.11 of 2015, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in C.C.No.102 of 2001 of dated 23.12.2014 by allowing this revision.)

1. The petitioner herein and one Venkatachalam were the Secretary and President respectively in the Thulukkamuthur Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank. In the surprise check conducted by the Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Society on 30.05.2000, only Rs.6,420/- cash was available instead of Rs.19,53,774.30/- as mentioned in the Cash Register. On further inspection on 16.06.2000, shortage of fertilisers stock worth Rs 12,02,578.28/- was noticed. Hence Department enquiry under section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act was conducted and misappropriation of Rs.31,49,932.58/- by the revision petitioner and the President was held to be proved. Therefore, the complaint dated 03.10.2000 was lodged by the Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Society, Coimbatore before the CCIW CID. Case in Crime No.18 of 2000 was registered under Sections 408, 409, 477A r/w. 109 IPC on 07.11.2000 against them and taken up for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing (Rural), Coimbatore.

2. On completion of investigation, Final Report was filed for offence under section 408 IPC as against the revision petitioner / Aruljothi ( A-1) and Venkatachalam (A-2). The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore has taken cognizance of the offence in C.C.No.102 of 2001.

3. To prove the charge, 10 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 29 exhibits were marked in support of the prosecution case. In defence, one Manonmani was examined as D.W.1. No exhibits were marked as defence documents.

4. The Trial Court on appreciating the evidence held that A-2 as the President of the Society not guilty of misappropriation. There is no evidence against A-2 to indicate that he aided, abetted or conspired with A1 to commit the offence of misappropriation. Therefore acquitted from the charge under Section 408 I.P.C. Whereas, it held A1, who was in-charge of the stock and cash during the relevant point of time between 30.05.2000 to 16.06.2000 responsible for the shortage of cash and stock as found in the enquiry report conducted under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Observing that A1 further has admitted the misappropriation in the course of enquiry, therefore, A1 is liable to be punished for the criminal breach of trust. Accordingly, A1 was sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment and the period of imprisonment already undergone was ordered to be set off.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner has preferred Appeal before the IV Additional District and Session Judge, Coimbatore and same was taken on file in Criminal Appeal No.11/2015. The Lower Appellate Court, after considering the grounds of appeal and re-appreciating the evidence, found no merit in the appeal and therefore dismissed it vide order dated 23.06.2020.

6. Criminal Revision Case is filed being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below contending that the petitioner was only the Secretary of the Society, whereas the second accused as the President of the Society at the relevant point of time was responsible for the overall functioning of the Society. As far as the stocks of fertilisers, PW.8 as Treasurer of the Society also jointly responsible, whereas she was not prosecuted for shortage of cash and stock. Further it was contended that the Trial Court has acquitted A-2 from the charge. When A2, the President is overall responsible as per the bye-law of the Society found not guilty, the petitioner who is not responsible for