Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3428 (MAD)

S. Kalyanam v. State by Sub-Inspector of Police

2009-08-28

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8 and quash the same. 2. The prosecution case is that one Mr.M.Rajeswaran, Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Annasalai, Chennai-2 has made a complaint against the (1) petitioner/Bhaskaran (2) K. Palanivel, Foreman, Grade II, Tamilandu Electricity Board, Villivakkam and (3) S. Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Royapuram, Chennai-13 before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai city, Chennai. 3. The crime branch, after receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.630 of 2000 on an alleged offence under Sections 419, 420 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The respondent police investigated the matter and filed a final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. The final report reveals that in the year 1994, based on the Khalid Committee and Supreme Court orders, temporary labourers were made permanent labourers. The contract labourer, C.Karunakaran, who is an accident victim at the work spot, was asked to appear for the interview on 212. 1994. That being so, the accused-1, with the help of accused A2 and A3, who were holding important position in C.I.T.U and also in the selection committee panel, by way of impersonation etc., got appointment in the place of C. Karunakaran and cheated the complainant. 4. Further, the accused No.1, noted above, who was working as a casual labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtain regular employment in the place of Karunakaran, who lost his vision, blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused-1, being a contract labourer, in order to get himself regularised, attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However, subsequently, from 03.01.1997, he did not attend the job. Later, as his name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commission report as a contract labourer, he got absorbed as helper in regular cadre in his own name. 5. The accused A2 and A3, knowingly abetted the act of impersonation by accused A1, enabled him to secure the appointment in the place of genuine candidate, Karunakaran, who did not opt to attend the interview due to his vision, affected in an electrical accident. 5. The accused A2 and A3, knowingly abetted the act of impersonation by accused A1, enabled him to secure the appointment in the place of genuine candidate, Karunakaran, who did not opt to attend the interview due to his vision, affected in an electrical accident. Thus, the accused A1, appears to have made himself, liable for an offence punishable under Section 419 I.P.C for impersonating himself as Karunakaran and under Section 420 I.P.C for cheating the Tamilandu Electricity Board. While accused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed an offence under Section 419, 420 and r/w 109 of I.P.C for having abetted A1 in securing the employment. In the said case, A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. They were lodged in Central Prison, Chennai. This is the prosecution case. 6. Further, the respondent/complainant in support of his case has mentioned 21 witnesses. 7. The petitioner has contended that he has been implicated in the above case for an alleged offence under Sections 419, 420 r/w 109 of IPC. The allegation made against the petitioner in the final report is that the list witness No.2, Mr.C.Karunakaran was a victim in an accident, while he was working as Casual Labourer with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prior to 1994. In view of the report of the Justice M.Khalid Committee and Supreme Court Orders, Temporary labourers were absorbed as permanent labourers. 8. The said Karunakaran was eligible for permanent appointment. The main allegation in the complaint is that this petitioner and A2, who are holding important positions in the Labour Union, CITU, abetted Mr.P.Bhaskaran, Accused No.1 to impersonate the said Karunakaran and got appointment for Accused No.1. The petitioner further alleged that the statement of witnesses, filed along with the final report did not make out any prima facie case as against the petitioner herein. Even as per the statement of the witnesses, it was A2, who participated during the interview and identified the Accused A1 as Karunakaran. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein is clear abuse of the process of Court. 9. The petitioner further submits that the witnesses 1,2 and 3 have stated that they were informed by Accused No.1 that he was instigated by this petitioner to impersonate Karunakaran. Admittedly, such a statement, in the first place is hearsay evidence and secondly the same is in the form of statement of co-accused. 9. The petitioner further submits that the witnesses 1,2 and 3 have stated that they were informed by Accused No.1 that he was instigated by this petitioner to impersonate Karunakaran. Admittedly, such a statement, in the first place is hearsay evidence and secondly the same is in the form of statement of co-accused. It is not a substantive evidence. The said statement of co-accused is inadmissible in law. The petitioner has further alleged that the offence had taken place in the year 1994. FIR was registered only on 01.08.2000. The final report was filed only on 112. 2006. The prosecution has not explained the reason for the inordinate delay of 12 years. 10. The petitioner has further alleged that the departmental enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, appropriate orders were passed by the Superintending Engineer (North), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai vide ref.No.309/2002 dated 29.05.2002. By the said punishment order, increment was stopped to the petitioner for four years with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to retired on 28.02.2003 and all his retirement benefits were settled. Due to the said punishment imposed on the petitioner, he has been denied the benefits of his promotion. Therefore, the prosecution case would amount to double Jeopardy and the same is clear abuse of the process of Court. 11. After considering the prosecution case and contentions of the petitioner and after verifying of documents of both sides and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the petitioner has stated that he has already been punished by his employer for the said offence. This is a departmental proceeding and does not come under the purview of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Court is the competent authority to deal with Criminal cases. The case in the said complaint is also attracted under the Criminal offence. Hence the case in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 has to be tried, in accordance with law, in the interest of Justice. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition No.24432 of 2007 has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.