Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Mr.P.Jayakuamr – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruvannamalai Detachments – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.30355 of 2024 | Crl.M.P.No.17191 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ramprakash Rajagopal
For the Respondent:Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused unlawfully misappropriated property entrusted to them as public servants, a prerequisite lacking in this case.
Headnote:This judgment analyzes the applicability of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act in the context of a quash petition filed by the petitioners charged with conspiracy and misappropriation. The court concluded that the petitioners' actions during the specified periods resulted in unauthorized claims for diesel, which constituted potential misuse of public funds. The court framed the issues on whether a prima facie case existed against the petitioners amidst claims of improper booking practices. It stated that the main issue involved the requirement of proving dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property, emphasizing the lack of clear evidential support for the prosecution's case. The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition and noted that factual determinations could only be resolved during the trial phase. The petitioner's claims did not warrant quashing the proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation against municipal employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. requirement of establishing proof of entrusted property in public corruption cases. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. factual matters must be evaluated during trial; insufficient grounds to quash petition. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. the examination of witness statements and evidence leading to a prima facie case for trial. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the petition means case proceeds to trial. (Para 12) |
O R D E R
The petitioner/accused A4 & A5 facing trial in Special Case.No.4/2018 for offences under Sections 120 (B), 465, 468, 471, 409 of I.P.C and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) (d) of the P.C Act had filed this quash petition.
2. The contention of the petitioners are that, the 1st petitioner is a Wireman-cum-Generator Operator and the 2nd petitioner is an Electrician-cum- Generator Operator. The case projected against them is that, during the period from 07.09.2011 to 31.03.2014 and from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014, the petitioners, who were employed in the Tiruvannamalai Township and posted at the Ulagalabadi Pick Up Dam Head Water Pumping Station conspired with A1 to A3. They made a false claim that diesel was purchased and used in Generators (110 KVA and 200 KVA) whenever there was power cuts for pumping station and distribution of the water in the water station. Hence, they had misappropriated the public funds to a tune of Rs.22,76,651/-.
3. The FIR against the petitioners are that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter, a case has been registered. The complaint against the petitioners and other accused is that they misappropriated the funds allotted for the purchase of diesel for the generators installed at Water pumping Station, Ulagalapadi Pick up Dam, Thennrampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. Further, the preliminary enquiry conducted that A1 had purchased a large quantity of diesel from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) dealer at Tiruvannamalai with the association of A2 and A3, on a credit basis during the period from 01.05.2012 to 31.10.2013 and created false utilisation entries in the log books of Ulagalapadi pick up dam Head Water Pumping Station and shown huge purchase of diesel from the Petrol bunk to the pumping Station on different dates and fraudulently sold to unknown agency and thereby, caused a wrongful loss to the Municipal exchequer and wrongful gain to the accused persons to a tune of Rs.21,45,894/-. Though, the case proceeds from a preliminary inquiry, there are no details about who conducted the enquiry and the preliminary inquiry does not form part of the final report.
4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in the charge sheet, it is projected that the second petitioner, knowingly in association with the first petitioner, recorded false power cut hours in the log books, falsely recorded the log books, drawn excess diesel for the power cut hours and disposed of the diesel in association with other accused which is contra to the F.I.R. He further submitted that, in this case, it is not clear whether booking of diesel without its utilisation or converting the diesel into money and misappropriation of the same. He also further submitted that, in this case, L.W.5, the BPCL dealer had mentioned that the persons from Municipality used to come and fill the diesel in 35-litre cans and he used to submit the accounts and they would issue cheque directly to the petrol bunk for the purchase of diesel.
5. Further, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K.R.Purushothaman vs State Of Kerala reported in AIR 2005 SC 35, held that for the offences under Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of P.C Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant. The entrustment of the property is a necessary ingredien
