Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1689 (MAD)

S. Stalin Babu v. State

2016-04-29

P.N.PRAKASH

body2016
ORDER : P.N. Prakash, J. 1. For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case are taken from Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 6640 of 2016, in which, the petitioner seeks to call for the records in Cr.R.P. No. 25 of 2015 dated 14.03.2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court) Thanjavur confirming the order passed by the court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Papanasam in C.M.P. No. 1797 of 2015 dated 09.07.2015 and to set aside the same and consequently to discharge the petitioner from the charges in C.C. No. 96 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam. The petitioner was working as Jewel Appraiser in Z827 Ammapettai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank (in short "APACB Limited") during 1993. It is alleged that the original jewels that were pledged by six members of the Society for jewel loan have been substituted with spurious one by the petitioner and others. In this connection, an enquiry under Section 87 of the Cooperative Societies Act was conducted and the responsibility was fixed against this petitioner and others, pursuant to which, on the complaint given by one Mr. Natarajan, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Bank, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 2 of 1996 on 10.01.1996 and after completing the investigation filed seven final reports in C.C. Nos. 96 to 102 of 1998 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam for offences under Sections 120(b), 408, 409, 447(A), 467, 471 and 109 IPC against this petitioner and another. 2. It is seen that this petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Thanjavur against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 87 of the Act. This statutory appeal was numbered as C.M.A.19 of 1998 and learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur by order dated 22.02.2001 set aside the proceedings and remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies for fresh enquiry. In the meantime, when charges were to be framed against the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 96 to 102 of 1998, a discharge application was filed in C.M.P. 1797 of 2015 by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam on 09.07.2015, challenging which the petitioner filed criminal revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 25 to 31 of 2015 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, which were dismissed on 14.03.2016. 96 to 102 of 1998, a discharge application was filed in C.M.P. 1797 of 2015 by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam on 09.07.2015, challenging which the petitioner filed criminal revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 25 to 31 of 2015 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, which were dismissed on 14.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed these present petitions to set aside the said orders. 3. When these matters were taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would mould his reliefs and would pray for quashing of the prosecution in C.C. Nos. 96 to 102 of 1998 instead of praying for setting aside the orders passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur. This Court is of the view that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in an appropriate case, the relief can be moulded. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the trial in these cases has begun and the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 20. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial should not proceed until the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies conducts enquiry in compliance with the order dated 22.02.2001 passed by the Principal District Court, Thanjavur in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1998, as the enquiry findings will be binding on the criminal Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Veerabagu v. Devaraj (minor) rep. by M. Swaminathan, reported in 1995 (2) L.W.(Crl.) 435. The binding nature of the judgment of one Court of another Court has been set out in Sections 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. A Civil Court Order is not binding on the criminal Court and vice versa, unless it falls within the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. The matter has been settled by the Supreme Court in several judgments (See Iabal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, reported in 2005 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 692 : 2005 AIR SCW 1929, Para-24). That apart, a finding by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in a proceeding under the Cooperative Societies Act about the legal liability of a person cannot bind the criminal Court. That apart, a finding by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in a proceeding under the Cooperative Societies Act about the legal liability of a person cannot bind the criminal Court. In Air Customs Officer IGI New Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Dhamija reported in 2016 (2) SCALE 383 , the Supreme Court has stated that a person exonerated in an adjudication proceeding can be tried by a criminal Court. In the result, these petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. The matter is pending from 1998 and therefore, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The accused is directed to cooperate with the trial by cross examining the witnesses on the date they are examined in chief as directed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542 . If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to remand him to custody under Section 309 Cr.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667 . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.