Judgment : The petitioner in these petitions, Viswanathan, was President of Nannilam Cooperative Agricultural Bank Limited and he has filed these petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the criminal proceedings launched against him before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, in C.C. Nos. 159, 158 and 157 of 1979. 2. Crl.M.P. No. 2569 of 1979 arises out of C.C. No. 159 of 1979 in which the petitioner herein is the first accused. He along with A-2, the Secretary of the Bank is being tried for offences under section 409, read with 34, Indian Penal Code and section 477 (A), read with 34, Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the accused is, the petitioner, namely A-1, the President, and A-2, the Secretary, misappropriated between 6th October, 1969 and 10th October, 1975, a sum of Rs. 40,463 and thereby committed criminal breach of trust punishable under section 409, read with 34, Indian Penal Code. The second charge against them is that they made false entries in the accounts of the said Co-operative Bank and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 477 (A), read with 34, Indian Penal Code. 4. A-2, the Secretary, received two payment orders on State Bank of India, Nannilam Branch, on 12th September, 1975 and 27th September, 1975 for Rs. 30,850 and Rs. 9,613 respectively. He has encashed the payment orders on 13th September, 1975 and 4th October, 1975. These amounts were not brought into the cash book. When on 7th October, 1975, A-2 was required to remit funds for fertiliser sale proceeds at the Kumbakonam Co-operative Central Bank Branch at Nannilam, he found there was no adequate cash balance as he had not brought into account the payments received from State Bank of India, Nannilam. With the assistance of one Hariharan, Attender. A-2 inserted two receipt entries in the cash book of the Bank for Rs. 30,850 on 13th September, 1975 and Rs. 9,613 on 4th October, 1975 and altered the closing balances on the above days so as to adjust the receipt entries made. The original closing balance of Rs. 9,411.80 on 8th October, 1975 has been altered as Rs. 19,024.80. Thus the allegation against A-2 is that he had committed falsification of accounts and temporarily misappropriated the funds of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 40,463 with the collusion of the attender Hariharan. The original closing balance of Rs. 9,411.80 on 8th October, 1975 has been altered as Rs. 19,024.80. Thus the allegation against A-2 is that he had committed falsification of accounts and temporarily misappropriated the funds of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 40,463 with the collusion of the attender Hariharan. Thus, as far as the allegations of misappropriation of the funds and falsification of the accounts are concerned, they are levelled against A-2 directly. V. Rajendran, another attender, was all along writing the accounts of the Bank and he is also stated to be responsible for misappropriation in collusion with the Secretary. As far as the President, Viswanathan, A-2 is concerned, he stands charged for ignoring his statutory responsibilities cast upon him under Bye-law 27 (1) in haying allowed the Secretary and other employees of the Bank to act according to their whims and fancies without any check or restraint by the President. A-1 is also responsible for the cash balance of Rs. 11,560.20 representing the closing balance on 11th October, 1975 as he is the ex-officio Treasurer of the Bank as per Bye-law No. 27 (1) and as he is the Custodian of the cash and responsible for all the properties of the Society as laid down under Bye-law 27 (1)(a), (e). A-1 has failed to discharge his obligations and he has not even cared to sign the cash book on some relevant dates. 5. No doubt, according to the Bye-laws of the Bank, the President is the Custodian of the cash and he is responsible for all the properties of the Society. A-1 is charged for committing breach of trust and falsification of accounts in connivance with A-2. As far as this charge is concerned there is no evidence to connect the petitioner. A-1, with the actual committing of misappropriation or being a party to the falsification of the accounts. Nor is there are evidence to show that he connived with A-2 and others to commit the offences. There is no evidence, as is sought to be made out against the Secretary, A-2, that the petitioner was leading a luxurious life or spending liberally on his associates to infer sudden acquisition of wealth. There has been nothing produced to show that he lived; beyond his legitimate means of income. It is stated against A-2, that he was reported to be absconding with cash. There has been nothing produced to show that he lived; beyond his legitimate means of income. It is stated against A-2, that he was reported to be absconding with cash. Rajendran, another attender, has stated that A-2 had asked the other attender, Hariharan, to correct the chitta book which was done. According to Rajendran, he corrected the entries in the cash book as per the instructions of A-2 and the cash would be in the custody of a clerk, by name Rajamanickam. He admits that he has manipulated the account on 13th September, 1975 in the chitta regarding the entry of Rs. 30,850. None of the witnesses in the charge-sheet has implicated the President either directly or indirectly. At the worst, he may be negligent or not careful in the discharge of his statutory duties, as President of the Society. As far as this case is concerned with reference to A-1, regarding the charge of misappropriation Had falsification, they are liable to be quashed. 6. Crl.M.P. No. 2574 of 1979 relates to C.C. No. 158 of 1979 wherein the petitioner along with two others, accused 2 and 3, who are Secretary and Supervisor, is charged for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 9,000 an offence punishable under section 409, read with 34, Indian Penal Code. The other charges are under sections 467 and 471, read with 34, Indian Penal Code. 7. The allegations against the accused in C. C. No. 158 of 1979 are that A-2 issued a loan of Rs. 4,500 to one T. Gunasekaran of Sala-pery, and Rs. 4,500 to V. Mahalingam of Salipery on 3rd August, 1974. These two members deny having received any loan either in cash or kind from the Bank and they also disowned their signatures in the books of the Bank. Hence A-2 in collusion with another clerk, Rajamanickam, is stated to have committed misappropriation of Rs. 9,000. 8. The procedure for issuing loans by the Bank is, the Bank prepares annual credit limit for the ryots residing in its area of operation based on the certificate of the village Karnam in the register of ryots regarding the extent and pattern of crops raised by the members. After the sanction from the Co-operative Central Bank, Kumbakonam, it prepares drawal applications after getting the signatures of the members. After the sanction from the Co-operative Central Bank, Kumbakonam, it prepares drawal applications after getting the signatures of the members. The Board authorises the President and two directors to draw and disburse the sanctioned loan to the members. The responsibility of actual disbursement vests with the Secretary who is a co-operative trained hand and the President. The Circle Supervisor is also to attend to the disbursement of the loans. The said members, Gunasekaran and Mahalingam, deny having received any loan and they disown their signatures in the account books of the Bank. Subramanyam, Karnam of Salipery, has stated that he has not furnished any certificate for these two persons from the Register of Ryots regarding cultivation of lands. The allegation is that A-1 has prepared all the entries falsely and these loans were created by issuing loans on fictitious names, preparing false vouchers by forgery and by falsification of accounts. The allegation against A-1, the petitioner, is that he being the President of the Bank, is the custodian of cash and other properties as per the Bye-laws of the Society. He has allowed the employee to commit the fraud, because of bis negligence of duties. There is no doubt that the petitioner was grossly negligent in discharging his duties properly as President of the Bank. There is no evidence as such against the petitioner by the said Gunasekharan and Mahalingam that their names were entered benami in the account books. All the impugned entries are made by A-2 and others. Merely because some of the employees have committed this fraud, it cannot be said that the offence took place at the instance of the petitioner. None of the witnesses cited in the above case implicates the President either directly or indirectly in the said offence. Hence, these charges against the petitioner are also liable to be quashed. 9. Crl.M.P. No. 2581 of 1979 originates from C.C. No. 157 of 1979 in which case the petitioner, along with two others, is charged for criminal breach of trust in a sum of Rs. 29,359 between 6th October, 1969 and 10th October, 1975, and for forgery of registers in the Bank with intent to defraud. They were charged under section 409 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and sections 467 and 471 with 34, Indian Penal Code. 10. 29,359 between 6th October, 1969 and 10th October, 1975, and for forgery of registers in the Bank with intent to defraud. They were charged under section 409 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and sections 467 and 471 with 34, Indian Penal Code. 10. The allegations against the accused in C.C. No. 157 of 1979 are that loans were issued to Pannerselvam; Gurusamy Mudaliar, Haja Sheriff and Hyderali and some others for Rs. 46,999 totally under fictitious names. The Karnams of Salipery and Vazhkai were examined. The Karnam of. Salipery has deposed that Pannerselvam and Gurusamy Muda-liar are not residents of Salipery Village, they are neither pattadars nor tenant cultivators and the signatures found in the Ryotwari register of the Bank are not his own. The Karnam of Vazhkai Village deposed that Haja Sheriff and Hyderali do not have any lands in Vazhkai village and the certificate furnished in the Ryotwari register is false. Moreover, the signatures of the above persons as found in the various accounts books differed from one another. A-2, who is responsible for proper maintenance of books of accounts has manipulated the account books and created’ bogus persons and misappropriated bank’s funds to the extent of Rs. 46,999 under the said elevan Joans. 11. It is the duty of A-2 to prepare all the relevant documents of the members for the purpose of issuing loans to them. Though the loans to eleven persons mentioned are proved to be benami ones, the entire materials on the side of the prosecution admissions are only against A-2. It is also further alleged that one Rajamanickam, clerk, connived with A-2. As in the other two cases already dealt with, the petitioner stands charged for wilful negligence of his duties and for having allowed the Secretary and other employees to have a free play in the affairs of the society. The petitioner has not checked the entries in the account books and the entire affairs of the Bank had been left at the mercy of the Secretary and other staff at the Bank. Rajendran, an attender of the Bank, was one of the persons who was writing the accounts in the Bank and he is stated to have colluded with A-2. There is no doubt that it was because of the negligence of the petitioner, some of the loans were made to appear genuine though issued to non-existing persons. Rajendran, an attender of the Bank, was one of the persons who was writing the accounts in the Bank and he is stated to have colluded with A-2. There is no doubt that it was because of the negligence of the petitioner, some of the loans were made to appear genuine though issued to non-existing persons. A-2 was in a position to commit these frauds, because A-1, the petitioner, was not verifying things. A-2 mismanaged the affairs of the Bank by not he stowing that amount of diligence that was essential. No doubt, the petitioner, on some entry in the cash book signed blindly without verifying whether it was correct or not. He has signed, for instance the loans verification report on 17th September, 1975. This report contains the names of as many as 59 persons and A-1 signed, it on 17th September, 1975 with regard to the benami loans of the seven persons concerned in the above case. These persons were given loans by means of cheque and the savings bank ledger of the Bank and the loan ledger would prove it. Curiously, the impugned report of loan verification is signed by two Directors and also by one Supervisor who is not an officer of the Bank and whose duty is to verify the correctness of the entries. This would only go to show that proper care was not taken before the report was passed off. When entries of number of persons are there, it may not be possible to check each and every entry by the President himself. In this case also none of the witnesses implicates the President directly or indirectly with any criminal offences. This charge in so far as it is against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited before me the decision in 51. S. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra1, to lend support to his contention that the prosecution case as far as his client is concerned rests wholly on circumstantial evidence and those circumstances should be firmly established and there should be a definite pointer towards the guilt of the accused. 13. S. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra1, to lend support to his contention that the prosecution case as far as his client is concerned rests wholly on circumstantial evidence and those circumstances should be firmly established and there should be a definite pointer towards the guilt of the accused. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab2next contended that the allegation in the first information report, and the materials available on the side of the prosecution, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted, do not constitute the offence alleged against his client and it would be manifestly unjust to allow the prosecution to continue against him as it would amount to abuse of process of Court. 14. The learned counsel next referred to the decision in Karnataka v. L. Mumswamy3, for the proposition that when there is no material on record on which any Tribunal could reasonably convict the accused for any offence, it should not be permitted to continue and the proceedings are to be quashed. 15. There is considerable force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. All the materials available including the statements given under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, by the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer, have not implicated the petitioner in any manner. Even if the entire allegations in the first information report are admitted, the statements recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code are taken to be true in toto, it cannot be said that a case can be made out against the petitioner for any of the charges framed. The petitioner is one of the founders of the Nannilam Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited and he has been its President from its inception in the year 1957 to 1979 without interruption. It should be noted that even after the misappropriation came to light in 1975, the petitioner was allowed to be its President for four more years till 1979. There is no whisper anywhere that he has shared in the booty. A man who comes from affluent circumstances and who has been the President with an unblemished record and without a break from 1957 till 1979 can also fall a prey to the temptation of misappropriation of the society funds. It is possible, but it is not probable. There is no whisper anywhere that he has shared in the booty. A man who comes from affluent circumstances and who has been the President with an unblemished record and without a break from 1957 till 1979 can also fall a prey to the temptation of misappropriation of the society funds. It is possible, but it is not probable. No doubt, the High Court ought not to interfere ordinarily by way of quashing the charges but when all the necessary materials are available and the charges seen to be prima facie groundless, it is an obvious duty to interfere without subjecting a person to the unnecessary agony of a trial. The case was fully argued on both sides and after giving my best consideration, I am of opinion that this is a fit matter where I ought to interfere. It is not easy to guage the injury likely to be inflicted on a person by a vexatious and protracted criminal trial. It may be that ultimately the accused will be acquitted. That is not a sufficient ground for not rescuing him from what I consider to be a groundless and vexatious prosecution. Since prevention is better than cure. I quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 159, 158 and 157 of 1979 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Nagapattinam. In the result these petitions., viz., Crl. M.P. Nos. 2569, 2574 and 2521 of 1979, are allowed. 16. The observations made in these petitions should not in any way prejudice the case of the other accused. Petitions allowed.