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.

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

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.

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

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