BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Sheik Atham ... Petitioner Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.04 of 1999) ... Respondent Prayer: To Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order dated 24.10.2018 in C.A.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and by confirming the judgment dated 10.03.2015 passed in C.C.No.361 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The Present Criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated

24.10.2018 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, whereby the order of Trial court has been confirmed.

2.Brief Facts:

2.1. Petitioner worked as a Manager of the Cooperative Stores at Pettai. It was alleged that on 23.06.1996, petitioner made entries in the day books of the Cooperative Stores, showing purchase of 40 empty barrels, though no empty barrels were purchased and misappropriated a sum of Rs.20,030/-. On 19.07.1997, petitioner prepared a forged voucher for Rs.25,000/- without getting any permission or sanction from the President of the Society and misappropriated the said amount. On 31.12.1997, petitioner made entries in the account books showing no closing balance, though closing balance of Rs.

20,257.50/- was available and the same was misappropriated.

3. On the basis of the above it was alleged that during the period

23.06.1997 to 31.12.1996, petitioner misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs. 62,287.50/-. It was alleged that petitioner is a public servant entrusted with public money and the above act would constitute an offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, the act of forgery in creating a voucher for the purposes of grant of loan, would attract Section 465 of IPC and misappropriation through false entries in the books of accounts of the Society would attract offence under Section 477A of IPC.

4. The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the above offences and imposed the following sentence:

i) to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1000/- in-default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 409 of IPC.

ii) to undergo three months Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in-default, to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 465 of IPC.

iii) to undergo six months Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1000/-in-default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.

5. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before learned III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. The Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

6. Against the said order, petitioner preferred the present Criminal revision case inter alia, on the following grounds:-

a) The petitioner is not working in the Pettai Co-operative Society.

b) There is no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner committed the offence alleged by the prosecution.

c) There is no confession statement by the petitioner. Rather, the confession statement is falsely prepared by the respondent police, which petitioner was compelled to sign under threat and coercion.

7. On the other hand, the Mr. Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the findings of the Trial Court, which stood affirmed by the Appellate Court, does not warrant any interference. He would further submit that the above finding is on the basis of evidence. In this regard, he would place reliance upon the findings recorded by the Trial Court which would show that the courts below had passed orders on the basis of evidence and well reasoned thus does not warrant interfere