Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3743 (MAD)

SELVARAJ v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2018-10-11

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT G.Jayachandran, J. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Madurai in Crl.A.Nos.19 of 2011 confirming the Judgment of Judicial Magistrate - III, Madurai in C.C.Nos.148 of 2008. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein, while working as clerk in Muthu Weavers Society Ltd., T.Slubbulapuram, Andipatti during the year 2004-05 in connivance with other staff of the society has misappropriated the funds of the society by falsifying the accounts. The specific allegations made against the appellant in this case is that on 15.12.2014 he made false entries in the account as if Rs. 10,000/- was received by the Murugan Weavers Cooperative Society. Further, he created 26 vouchers on various dates between 07.06.2004 to 18.03.2005 and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 41,685.90/-. 3. Further it is also alleged that without any voucher, the Society's fund was misappropriated by entering expenses of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 76,637.60/- to misappropriate a total sum of Rs. 1,26,327.60/-. This appellant was charged for offence under Section 408 , 420, 468 & 477(A) IPC along with other accused. The trial Court found him guilty after considering the evidences let in by the prosecution. On appeal, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the false grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant would submit that P.W.8 Sivanandi, was responsible for the entire misappropriation. While so, the prosecution has examined him as a witness instead of arraying him as an accused. The day book, Ex.P.20 and the accounts have been verified by P.W.8 Sivanandi and he has affixed his signature. While so, belatedly, holding the appellant for misappropriation without holding Sivanandi, who has counter signed the account is evident of biased investigation. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.5, who has conducted enquiry under the Cooperative Society Act was not properly appreciated by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 5. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.5, who has conducted enquiry under the Cooperative Society Act was not properly appreciated by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) would submit that P.W.5 has conducted enquiry under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act and has gone through the records and accounts and submitted his report, Ex.P.7, wherein the misappropriation of the Society fund by the appellant herein has been found and proved to the record. The accountant and cashier of the Society were jointly incharge of the cash and stock of the Society. The stocks of the Society was administered by one Muthu Kamatchi. Registers were manipulated as if yarn were distributed to the members and a sum of Rs. 3,16,340/- stands outstanding. 6. The specific case of prosecution through its witnesses is that on 15.12.2004, the appellant had falsely made account as if Rs. 10,000/- given to Murugan Weaving Society. Further, with intention to misappropriate the funds of the Society falsely created 26 vouchers without signatures and misappropriated Rs. 41,685.00/- As per receipt No.534, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- not accounted. As sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards expenses falsely entered as per voucher No.437 instead of Rs. 500/- towards expenses, the accused entered as Rs. 3,500/- and appropriated the money. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate for the State and records perused.. 8. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, marked 65 exhibits and on behalf of the defence, two exhibits were marked. The trial Court after considering the evidence for prosecution has found the appellant Selvaraj guilty of offences under Sections 408 & 477(A) along with co-accused Ganapathy, as far as the charge under Section 468 was acquitted. 9. The trial has considered the evidence of P.W.5 who has conducted the enquiry under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act. For want of adequate evidence, regarding the several vouchers issued by this appellant, the trial Court has held the case of the prosecution not proved, whereas, found the accused guilty in respect of two transactions namely the voucher No.437 dated 31.01.2005 issued by the appellant for Rs. 3,500/- whereas the actual expense was only Rs. 3,000/- Thus, by enhancing the expense account by Rs. 3,500/- whereas the actual expense was only Rs. 3,000/- Thus, by enhancing the expense account by Rs. 500/- and creating vouchers with enhanced amount, the appellant has misappropriated Rs. 500/- 10. To support this finding, the Appellate Court has relied upon Ex.P.52/ challan wherein only Rs. 3,000/- has been remitted in the Bank. Correspondingly, in the date book also, at page 145 only Rs,3,000/- has been recorded. However, the voucher has been prepared by the appellant for Rs. 3,500/- by boosting up the expenses by Rs. 500/-. Likewise, in respect of receipt No.534 dated 20.09.2004, the appellant has issued a receipt for Rs. 25,500/- to Ithaya Deivam Magalir Cooperative Handloom Societies. But, in the receipt register, he has entered only Rs. 23,500/- Thereby, the appellant along with second accused has misappropriated totally a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. The trial Court after proper appreciation of the materials placed by the prosecution has rejected the case of the prosecution in respect of other vouchers and transactions for want of proof and found the above said two transactions are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The Appellate Court has also applied its mind and had arrived at the conclusion that there is no reason to disturb the finding of the trial Court. 12. In the revision case, after considering the rival submissions and records placed before this Court, the two receipts and the corresponding entries in the records clearly prove the guilt of the accused regarding misappropriation and falsification of accounts. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai in C.C.No.148 of 2008 dated 25.02.2011 which was confirmed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Madurai in C.A.No.19 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed.