SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 156

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
S. Arputhasamy & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri - Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 1532 & 1541 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 14005, 14007, 14052 & 14054 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Vijayakumar, Senior Advocate for J. Melwin Jebaz, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate.

Public servants can be charged with conspiracy and misappropriation for fraudulent actions under specific schemes without a need for prior sanction after retirement, if substantial evidence supports these claims.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, Section 397 r/w 401 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13 and 120B - Criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of funds - The accused, public servants, submitted false documents leading to misappropriation of government funds under a scheme for supplying milch animals, resulting in losses to the state. The trial court dismissed discharge petitions under Section 239 of CrPC, establishing prima facie cases against the accused. (Paras 2, 8, 12, 14)

(B) Discharge Applications - The rationale for denying discharge is predicated on substantive evidence of misappropriation and conspiracy articulated throughout the judgment, emphasizing the roles of accused in fabricating documents and colluding with non-public individuals for fraudulent gains. (Paras 4.11, 8, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were public servants under investigation for their alleged collusion in a scheme intended for tribal welfare, where funds were misappropriated by submitting forged documents. The scheme aimed to provide milch animals to scheduled tribe beneficiaries but resulted in claims for animals that were never provided.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found sufficient grounds for framing charges against the accused, ruling that the materials presented by the prosecution disclosed the existence of all necessary elements constituting the offences alleged.

Issues: The core issues included whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused and whether the trial court had erred in dismissing discharge petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement that a trial court must consider the materials presented by the prosecution at face value, without conducting a mini-trial, focusing solely on whether there exists sufficient ground to presume the commission of an offence.

Result: Criminal Revision Cases dismissed; the decision of the trial court upheld.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and relevant facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the alleged offence and accused roles. (Para 4 , 5)
3. government's stance and evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. legal standards for evaluating discharge. (Para 9 , 10)
5. conclusion on the dismissal and trial proceedings. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , pleased to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in Crl.M.P.No.5744 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.01/2021 dated 25.07.2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and allow the discharge petition.

Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , pleased to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in Crl.M.P.No.5742 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.01/2021 dated 25.07.2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and allow the discharge petition.)

Common Order:

1. The Criminal Revision Cases have been filed seeking to set aside the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5742 & 5744 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2021 vide orders dated 25.07.2023, dismissing the discharge petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., who are A1 and A2.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution are as under :-

    a) The first accused/M.Sathiyanarayanan was working as Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Krishnagiri from 23.06.2014 to 04.02.2015 and now, he retired from service on 31.08.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation and the second accused, S.Arputhasamy was working as District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Krishnagiri District from 24.02.2014 to 30.06.2015 and he retired from service on 30.06.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. During the relevant period of commission of offences, A1 and A2 were public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. A1 and A2 are alleged to have committed misappropriation of Government money while implementing the scheme of providing milch animals to the Tribal people. A3 to A5 are private individuals, who acted as brokers in purchasing milch animals from open market.

    b) Every year, the Government of India release the Special Central Assistance towards creation of Capital Assets and for undertaking activities under General category for economic development of Scheduled Tribes in conjunction with state's efforts in the Tribal sub plan. During the year 2013-14, totally Rs.488.25 lakhs was sanctioned, out of which, a sum of Rs.77.25 lakhs was towards creation of Capital Assets and Rs.411.00 lakhs was towards General activities. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.(Ms)No.4 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare TD1(1) Department dated 28.01.2014 accorded sanction for Rs.488.25 lakhs under the Grant-in-Aid of Special Central Assistance to Tribal Sub-Plan for the year 2013-14 for the implementation of schemes. The Director of Tribal Welfare was authorized to draw and disburse the amount to the District Collectors/implementing agencies concerned for the implementation of the schemes and he was directed to release the amount to the implementing agencies for the activities already proposed by the State Government. In the said G.O, a total sum of Rs.51.60 lakhs was distributed to Krishnagiri District under the General Category for the supply of 150 free milch animals to 150 beneficiaries.

    c) While implementing the scheme, the District Collector, Krishnagiri ordered A2 to constitute a Purchase Committee comprising of the officials viz., District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer (A2), Joint Director/Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Krishnagiri/Hosur, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (respective Jurisdiction) and Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Krishnagiri (A1) and purchase milch animals from open market through A3 and A4 in the presen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top