IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:25.10.2021 CORAM .

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.A.No.590 of 2014 The State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras - 600104. (V & A.C. Special Cell, Salem Crime No.1/AC/90) .. Appellant/Complainant Vs.

1.C.Sukumaran (A1)

2.R.Gandhi (A2) .. Respondents/Accused (A1 & A2) Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal, dated 10.12.2013 in Special Calendar Case No.120/93 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and convict the respondents/accused (A1 and A2) for the charges framed against them.

For Appellant .. Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R1 .. No Appearance For R2 .. Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the prosecution under Section

378 of Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the judgment of the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, dated 10.12.2013 whereby, the accused had been acquitted in Special Calendar Case No.120 of 1993.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing on 13.09.2021, it had been stated that the first respondent/first accused had died. It had, therefore, been observed that the charges against A1 has, naturally, abated owing to the death and the appeal will, necessarily, have to be dismissed as against A1/R1.

3. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the appellant/prosecution and Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar, learned Counsel for the second respondent/A2.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-

Corruption, Special Wing, Salem had registered F.I.R in Crime No.1/AC/90/SPL/SL against C.Sukumaran, Forest Range Officer, who was formerly working in the Survey and Demarcation Range of Kalrayan division, Salem District alleging offences under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477-A of I.P.C and also under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of information received that the accused, namely C.Sukumaran had made false records stating that work of construction of Cairns had been executed in Chinnakalrayan hills between August, 1988 and March, 1989 and further, such entries were made in the measurements book to make it appear as if the works were, actually, carried out and measurements were recorded.

5. It had been claimed that no such work had been done, much less, in

12 blocks, as claimed, in Chinnakalrayan hills. It was stated that the total cost of the construction of Cairns was said to be on at Rs.30,080/-. It was stated that owing to this particular fact of receiving money, for the works not done, the named accused had committed offences as stated above. After investigation, a final report had been filed and in that final report, quite apart from the named accused in the First Information Report, one further accused was added as A2.

6. As stated above, A1 had died pending the appeal and charges, naturally, has abated. Even otherwise, he had been acquitted of all the charges by the Trial Court. The appeal, therefore, has been argued, naturally, against A2/R2. The scope of the appeal would, naturally, move away, and this Court has to examine specific evidence adduced by the prosecution as against A2.

7. On the basis of the final report, ten charges had been framed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, after going through the process of issuing copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

8. The first charge was against A1, which was an omnibus charge under Section 120(b) of I.P.C read with 167, 467, 471 read with 467, 409, 420 and 477-A of I.P.C and also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 109 of I.P.C. The second charge was also against A1 for offence under Section 167 of I.P.C. The third charge was also against A1 under Section 467 of I.P.C (29 counts). The fourth charge was also ag