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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Karunanidhi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.2178 of 2024|Crl.M.P.No.17137 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Mukunth, A.Tamilarasan
For the Respondents: C.E.Pratap

When alleged misappropriated funds from a cooperative society are recovered with interest during investigation, and evidence of criminal conspiracy or intent is absent, criminal proceedings can be quashed as such disputes are primarily civil or administrative in nature.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120

(B), 408, 471, 477(A) - Misappropriation of funds - Discharge petition - Petitioner, an accountant, alleged to have misappropriated funds of a Cooperative Society - Funds recovered with interest during investigation - Court held that in the absence of criminal intent and given the recovery of funds, continued criminal prosecution is not warranted - Prior court rulings establish that supervisory lapses or negligence do not automatically imply criminal liability without proof of mens rea. (Paras 6.5, 9, 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former accountant at a Cooperative Society, was accused of misappropriating Rs.1,26,99,000/- in collusion with a Special Officer. A case was registered and a final report filed in C.C.No.129 of 2022. The petitioner filed a discharge petition which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order, asserting that the amounts were recovered with interest and that no criminal conspiracy existed.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the misappropriated funds were fully recovered with interest during the investigation. Citing prior precedents, the Court determined that the petitioner should not be subjected to the ordeal of a criminal trial for alleged acts that have been compensated and where civil liability was already addressed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the criminal case given that the misappropriated funds were recovered and there was no clear evidence of criminal conspiracy or intent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged misappropriated amount has been recovered with interest during the investigation, and no prima facie evidence of criminal intent or conspiracy is established, the criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent the unnecessary ordeal of trial, particularly when administrative negligence appears to be the primary issue.

Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed; Petitioner discharged from the case.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts involving fund misappropriation in a cooperative society. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's grounds for discharge based on restitution of funds. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court evaluation of criminal liability versus civil negligence and precedent application. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final order granting discharge based on recovery of funds. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 06.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.11030 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner had joined the service of Cuddalore Agricultural Co-operative Producers Sales Association, Cuddalore District (hereinafter referred to as “Cooperative Society”) as Clerk on 02.08.1982 and he was working as an Accountant in the said Association from 01.01.2010 to 25.09.2013. While the Petitioner was in service, he colluded with one Mr.R.Krishnaraj who was working as a Special Officer in the said Cooperative Society and misappropriated the funds of the society to the tune of Rs.1,26,99,000/-. Therefore, the then Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cuddalore had lodged a police complaint against the Petitioner and said Krishnaraj.

3. The allegations stated against the Petitioner are as follows:

(i) Petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- under the pretext that he gave loan of Rs.2,00,000/- each to 16 persons totally amounting to Rs.36,00,000/-.

(ii) Petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.42,70,000/- by showing that there was a shortage of 5552 bags of Paddy in the Paddy Warehouse of the Cooperative Society.

(iii) Petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.44,65,000/- by falsely accounting that he had purchased Paddy to the Cooperative Society.

(iv) Petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,64,000/- by falsely stating that he had purchased Paddy for the said amount from Mr.Manokaran of Sirupalaiyur.

4. Based on the complaint given by the then Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cuddalore, Respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2019 against the Petitioner and said Krishnaraj for the offences under Section 120(B), 408, 471, 477(A) of IPC and started investigating the case. In the said case, Petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1 and the said Krishnaraj was arrayed as Accused No.2. After the completion of investigation, Respondent Police had filed the Final Report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore on 06.01.2022 which was taken on file in C.C.No.129 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore.

5. While the case in C.C.No.129 of 2022 is pending, Petitioner/Accused No.1 had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.11030 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2022 before the Trial Court seeking to discharge him from the criminal case pending against him in C.C.No.129 of 2022 on the file of the Trial Court. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore vide Order dated 06.08.2024, dismissed the said petition. Hence, Petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that Petitioner/Accused No.1 has not committed any offence as stated in the Final Report filed by the Respondent Police. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 had given loan to the members of the Cooperative Society in strict accordance with law and he did not misappropriate a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- from the Cooperative Society. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 had given loan to 16 persons amounting to Rs.36,00,000/- and thereafter, he had collected the said loans with interest amounting to Rs.38,14,137/- which is evident from the Investigation Report filed by R.Gopinath, then Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In Paragraph No.2 of the said Investigation Report, it has been stated that “the above 18 loans have been repaid with interest on variou

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