Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3823 (MAD)

S. Jayakumar v. State by The Inspector of Police

2010-08-27

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. After getting the Criminal Original Petition admitted and interim stay of the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner had chosen to drag on the matter for more than three years. Having not chosen to evince interest in having the matter argued, paving the way for an order being pronounced on merit, in the past on many occasions, either there was absence of representation or representation simply seeking adjournments. Having noted the above attitude of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court, on 16.07.2010 itself, while granting an adjournment on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, made an observation that no further request for adjournment would be entertained. However, subsequent thereto, on three occasions, this court showed indulgence and granted adjournments at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, the counsel is absent and no arrangement has been made to make a representation on behalf of the petitioner. The above said particulars will make it clear that the petitioner does not have genuine interest to have the case concluded at the earliest point of time. If any more indulgence is shown, it shall amount to the court being a party to the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner to protract the trial of the criminal case, which has been stayed in this petition. Therefore, this court, deems it fit to pass an order after hearing the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. After hearing the arguments advanced by Mr.R.Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent and after perusing the records, this court passes the following order. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Secretary of the Co-operative Bank misappropriated the funds of the Co-operative bank to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- on 01.03.2004, but the same was repaid by him to the bank on 21.06.2004. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as a clerk in V.Kumaramangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and he helped the Secretary in temporarily misappropriating the same. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as a clerk in V.Kumaramangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and he helped the Secretary in temporarily misappropriating the same. Pursuant to the detection of the said misappropriation, a case was registered arraigning the Secretary as the first accused and the petitioner herein as the second accused in Cr.No.3/2005 on the file of the respondent police and on the completion of investigation, a final report was submitted alleging commission of an offence by the first accused, who was the then Secretary of the Co-operative bank during the relevant period. According to prosecution case the Secretary had committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,75,880.50P and that he also committed the offence under Section 408 IPC, whereas the petitioner herein, who figures as A2 and other accused persons numbering 12, committed the offenece of abetting the commission of the above said offences by the first accused. It cant be now said that there is no material for prosecuting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 408 r/w section 109 IPC. 4. On the other hand, the main ground on which the petitioner has sought for an order quashing the criminal proceeding against him is that no sanction under Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was obtained for prosecuting him in the above said calendar case and hence the criminal prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.81 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate- II, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District, is liable to be quashed. 5. Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 reads as follows:- " 164. Cognizance of offences – (1) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. (2) Every offence under this Act shall, for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) be deemed to be non-cognizable. (3) No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar and such sanction shall not be given without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to represent his case." 6. (3) No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar and such sanction shall not be given without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to represent his case." 6. Banking on the provisions found in sub-clause (3) of Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the petitioner seems to have raised a plea that the prosecution launched against him has to be quashed. There is no substance in the above said contention of the petitioner for the simple reason that it is not a prosecution launched against him for any offence under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The offences alleged are one punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore Sub-section (3) of Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is not attracted. 7. For the reasons stated above, this court holds that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2007 is dismissed.