Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
G. ILANGOVAN, J.
A. Veerasingam – Petitioner
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCIW CID, Ramanathapuram & Another – Respondents
Crl. OP (MD) No. 21206 of 2023 & CMP(MD)No. 16600 & 16601 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2024
For the Petitioner: K.C. Ramalingam.
For the Respondents: M. Vaikkam Karunanithi.
IMPORTANT POINT
Supervisory officers should not be criminally prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of their involvement, and the delay in trial process impacting an accused's rights is a violation of human rights.
Headnote:
Criminal Prosecution - Quashment of Charge Sheet - IPC 408, 409, 477(A), 420, 467 r/w 34 - Supervisory Cadre Officers - Delay in Trial Process - Abuse of Process of Law
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Auditor, sought quashment of a charge sheet filed against him for alleged irregularities in the Co-operative Bank. He argued that as a supervisory officer, he should not be criminally prosecuted and that the delay in trial process had affected his retirement benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in trial process had impacted the petitioner's retirement benefits and that the criminal prosecution of supervisory officers should be avoided unless there is clear evidence of their involvement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in irregularities, the delay in trial process affecting his retirement benefits, and the applicability of criminal prosecution to supervisory officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in trial process impacting an accused's rights is a violation of human rights. It also emphasized that supervisory officers should not be criminally prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of their involvement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal original petition and quashed the case against the petitioner, citing the abuse of process of law due to the delay in trial process and the lack of evidence implicating the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in CC No.125 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as against the petitioner/A2 herein and pass such further or other orders.)
1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the charge sheet in CC No.125 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the second accused was working as Junior Inspector in the Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Sivagangai. A complaint was registered on the basis of the statement given by one Raman, who was working as Auditor in the Ramanathapuram Co-operative Audit Department, Kamuthi. During the verification of the records for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98, when the petitioner/A2 was working as Junior Auditor, he failed to point out irregularities committed by the Secretary of the Keezhamaravathi Co-operative Bank, Ramanathapuram. He colluded with the Secretary and other employees and acted against the interest of the Society. One Muthuraman, who was working as Senior Auditor in the very same office was impleaded as A1. Originally, the FIR was not registered against him. During the course of the investigation, he was implicated as an accused. During the relevant period between 10/09/1997 and 22/07/1999, he verified all the records of Keezhamaravathi Co-operative Bank, Ramanathapuram and filed the audit report. Upon the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.16 of 2001 was registered for the offences under sections 408, 409, 477(A), 420, 467 r/w 34 of IPC. After that, final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in CC No.125 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.
3. Seeking quashment of the same, this petition is filed by A2 on the ground that during the relevant period, he was working as Junior Audit Officer, verified the records of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and filed a report also; But later, another auditor was appointed, he found various irregularities committed by the Secretary and other employees; Since he was working as Auditor during the relevant period, no allegation of criminal conspiracy, misappropriation or cheating will lie against him.
4. On that account, this petition is filed. The case is filed in the year 2004. The petitioner has not approached this court immediately. He is waiting for a very long period of 20 years. All of a sudden, he filed a petition stating that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon various orders passed by this court in respect of Cooperative Society matters, wherein the officers in the cadre of Auditor have been implicated.
6. No doubt that the officers in the cadre of Auditor are enjoying special privilege of supervisory cadre post. They are not taking part in the day today affairs of the society. The society is under the control of the Secretary and the Special Officer as the case may be. But here the problem lies on the question of delay.
7. A report is called for from the trial court as to the stage of the trial process. Report has been received stating that PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of the prosecution.
8. When the trial process is in the half way, quashment of the case by exercising the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C may not be proper, that is the contention of the prosecution.
9. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he retired from the service, on 30/06/2009. Now 14 years lapsed. Even after the long delay, the retirement benefits are not settled to him because of the pendency of the trial process.
10. Even the report of the trial court does not indicate the reason for the long delay, speedy trial is a human right, which is available to an accused,
