IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11-09-2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

CRL.RC.Nos.614 and 733 to 752 of 2008

and M.P Nos.1 and 2 of 2008

Crl.RC.No.614 of 2008

K.Murugesan

.. Petitioner in all Cr.RCs/Accused

Versus

State by

The Inspector of Police,

CCIW, Thiruvannamalai,

Thiruvannamalai District... Respondent in all Crl.RCs/Complainant

Prayer in Crl.RC.No.614/2008:- Revision filed u/s.397 and 401

Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in so far relates to order

passed in C.A.No.119 of 2007, C.A.No.120/2007, 121/2007, 122/2007,

123/2007, 124/2007, 125/2007, 126/2007, 128/2007, 129/2007, 130/2007,

131/2007, 132/2007, 133/2007, 134/2007,135/2007, 136/207, 137/2007,

138/2007 and 139 of 2007 respectively on the file of Additional

District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore dated 26.06.2009 and

21.2.2008 confirming the order passed in C.C.No.46/2002,

C.C.No.47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64, 65 & 66 of

2002 respectively on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Vellore

dt.21.02.2008 and 26.06.2007 and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasaam

in all Crl.RCs

For Respondent : Mr.Md.Riyaz,

in all Crl.RCs

Government Advocate (crl.side)

COMMON ORDER

The revision petitions have been filed to set aside the orders

passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC,

Vellore dated 26.06.2009 confirming the order passed in C.C.No.46 to

66 of 2002 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Vellore

dt.21.02.2008 imposing sentence of one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-

for the alleged offence u/s.406 and one year R.I and fine of Rs.500/-

for the alleged offence u/s.477 (A) IPC.

2. The revision petitioner is the Secretary Incharge of a Co-

operative Society viz. Kamalaputhur Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Bank,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kamalaputhur. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

offence has not been properly made out with the evidence available.

According to him, as an incharge, he has sanctioned the loans.

Therefore, there was no direct link with him. According to him, only

on the basis of the Special Officer's instruction, he has sanctioned

the loans and therefore offence of misappropriation will not arise

against him. Moreover, evidence has not been properly appreciated by

the court below. Hence, he has come forward with these revision

petitions.

3. The main ground contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the persons who have alleged to have given the

complaint, have not been examined.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would contend that

the petitioner is the Incharge Secretary of the Co-Operative Society

from 16.04.1992 to 02.09.1996 and during this period, he has

sanctioned loans to the tune of Rs.23,596.90 and he has allegedly

used the same for his own purpose by falsification of account and

thereby caused huge loss to the society. It is not in only one case

but he has continuously falsified the accounts between the period

from 01.12.1993 to 30.12.1994. He has made this falsification of

accounts and ultimately by the audit objection, it was found out and

the evidence let in also correlate which has been proved without any

reasonable doubt and it was only on his instigation and he is only

the master mind for the whole episode which has taken place and the

lower court has rightly observed how the falsification has taken

place. Ex.P12, report has been marked on the side of the

prosecution which enumerates the misleads done by the revision

petitioner. Therefore, the lower court has come to the conclusion by

convicting the petitioner, as stated above.

5. Heard both sides.

6. By consent of both sides, all the revisions petitions are

taken up together and this common order is passed.

7. For easy reference, a detailed chart is app