Madras High Court
P.Mariappan vs State Represented By on 3 October, 2018
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 03.10.2018
RESERVED ON : 18.09.2018
DELIVERED ON : 03.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A(MD)No.65 of 2008
P.Mariappan : Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB/Chennai,
in R.C.No.9 of 2005. : Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the Judgment of sentence and conviction dated 23.01.2008
passed in C.C.No.10 of 2005 by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Madurai.
!For Appellant : Mr.K.Shankar
for Mr.R.Diwakaran
^For Respondent : Mr.N.Nagendran,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.
:JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the Judgment made in C.C.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Madurai, dated 23.01.2008.
2.The appellant herein, who is the sole accused in the case, was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'].
3.The gist of the charge against the appellant/accused is that while he was working as Receipt Cashier in National Institute of Technology [NIT], Trichy [previously known as Regional Engineering College, Trichy], he has received cash from the students towards remittance of College Fees, Examination Fees, Hostel Fees, Miscellaneous Fees, etc. and has issued computer generated receipt to the payee. However, he had manipulated Daily Collection Reports/Abstracts to camouflage certain receipts received by cash and not accounted. He has falsified the accounts by generating print-outs containing incorrect data and thus, misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,38,750/-. Taking note of the fact that the appellant/ accused has substantially repaid the money he appropriated, the Trial Court has imposed sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offence found guilty. The Trial Court has also directed the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and period of detention if any already undergone, shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment awarded. Aggrieved by the sentence and conviction, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence, when there is no ingredient in the charge to attract provisions under P.C. Act. According to the learned counsel, the appellant/accused was the Cashier, whose duty is to collect cash from the students towards various heads and submit Daily Collection Reports along with category-wise abstracts. On a vague allegation alleging there was misappropriation of fund during March 2001 to October 2003, a belated complaint filed by the Director in-charge on 08.02.2005 was taken on file for investigation by CBI.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would further submit that the duty of a Receipt Cashier is very limited and he is supposed to submit Daily Collection Reports to his immediate superior along with the cash. If at all there was any misappropriation, it will be detected on the same day. When in the complaint itself it is stated that group of cashiers have misappropriated the fund and First Information Report was registered for offence under Section 120-B read with 409 IPC against this appellant/accused as well as unknown others, for the reason best known the investigation had confined only to the appellant/accused and he alone has been prosecuted. The Trial Court ought to have taken note of this truncated investigation and ought to have acquitted this accused.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would also submit that the appellant under threat was forced to pay nearly Rs.2 lakhs which is more than the alleged misappropriation. The prosecution witnesses have targeted the appellant/accused and had put the entire shortage in the account against this appellant. The Trial Court has erroneously relied upon the testimony of interested witnesses to believe that for years together the appellant/accused alone was manipulated the computer data and submitting false accounts which has not been noticed by the concerned authorities, who is supposed to verify the account submitted by the appellant/accused and the same was detected when statutory audit was conducted after lapse of three years. The Trial Court also did not give due weightage for the fact that during departmental proceedings initiated against the accused, he was found not guilty.
7.The learned counsel would submit that the main allegation against the appellant/accused is that he manipulated the Daily Collection Reports and after issuing receipts to the students collecting money, he has cancelled the same. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the computer does not have a password for exclusive access. Apart from the appellant/accused, there were other staff of NIT handling the computer during the relevant point of time. While so, issuance of receipt after collection of money and cancellation of the same without accounting the money received, cannot be attributed against the appellant alone. For the said reason, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that out of alleged 26 receipts issued and cancelled towards term fees, etc., the prosecution is unable to produce any document. As far as 18 examination fees receipts issued which were cancelled and not reflected in the Daily Collection Reports and Abstract, the appellant/accused cannot be held guilty, since the computer was accessed by several persons including the appellant/accused. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the charge of misappropriation and falsification of accounts is not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court has erred in holding that the appellant/accused guilty of offence under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC.
8.The learned counsel would further submit that the allegation of misconduct and misappropriation under Section 13(1)(c) of P.C. Act, is concerned, though the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any misconduct or misappropriation, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant/accused under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act.
9.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would submit that P.Mariappan (accused) was Cashier-II (Receipt Cashier) in the Cash Section Main Office, National Institute of Technology, Trichy during 10.07.2002 to 11.11.2003. During the local audit on the accounts of Nit, Trichy, certain discrepancies between Cash Collection Reports and Abstracts were noticed. The reconciliation of the accounts unraveled the discrepancies in computerised cash receipts, Daily Collection Reports and Abstracts. When the staff dealing with the cash and accounts were enquired, 26 cash receipts were identified as suspected case by the Account Section. On those days, the collection of various fees was higher, but the Daily Collection Report and Abstracts of accounts and money remitted into the bank, were found to be less. Similarly, examination fees received from students were also not properly reflected in the Daily Collection Reports. When the matter was investigated by the administration, the modus operandi of misappropriation came to light leading to registration of FIR and filing final report against the appellant/accused for offence under Sections 409, 477-A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C. Act. 26 receipts issued by the appellant through computer for payment of college fees and 18 cases of examination fees were misappropriated by the appellant/accused by cancelling the remittance and the same are as follows:
College Fees:
Sl.No. Date Name of Student Receipt No. Amount
1.
11.10.2002 V.Syed Basheer 34757 Rs.2,000/-
2. 11.10.2002 K.Vasantha 34893 Rs.2,000/-
3. 16.10.2002 R.A.Srivasan 35137 Rs.7,000/-
4. 17.10.2002 M.Senthil Murugan 35457 Rs.7,000/-
5. 24.12.2002 Mahesh Sama 41075 Rs.11,050/-
6. 24.12.2002 Rajat Bhardwaj 41100 Rs.6,400/-
7. 24.12.2002 Krishnan Chandra Newton 41133 Rs.4,400/-
8. 26.12.2002 Ashish Kumar Jain 41220 Rs.4,400/-
9. 26.12.2002 Rahul Kashyap 41223 Rs.6,400/-
10. 27.12.2002 Gaurava Vats 41317 Rs.4,400/-
11. 27.12.2002 Bhupendra C.Dhapade 41349 Rs.4,400/-
12. 27.12.2002 Karthik Kumar 41352 Rs.11,050/-
13. 30.12.2002 G.Balaji 41427 Rs.4,400/-
14. 30.12.2002 G.Balaji 41441 Rs.4,400/-
15. 30.12.2002 Anirban Ghosh 41472 Rs.6,400/-
16. 31.12.2002 M.Shah Segar 41587 Rs.4,400/-
17. 31.12.2002 Sridhar Chetan 41589 Rs.4,400/-
18. 31.12.2002 Pankaj Kumar Suman 41597 Rs.4,400/-
19. 02.01.2003 G.Subash 41730 Rs.4,400/-
20. 02.01.2003 G.B.Chandrabanshi 41753 Rs.4,400/-
21. 06.01.2003 M.Santhosh Kumar 41896 Rs.4,400/-
22. 06.01.2003 K.Rajesh 41900 Rs.2,400/-
23. 06.01.2003 P.Charles Roopesh 41919 Rs.4,400/-
24. 07.01.2003 Predrick Terrance 42062 Rs.4,400/-
25. 20.01.2003 Deepak Kumar Gupta 42628 Rs.4,400/-
26. 21.01.2003 Vasudev S.Udhatya 42743 Rs.11,050/-
Examination Fees:
Sl.No. Date Name of Student Receipt No. Amount
1. 17.09.2003 S.Magesh 62993 Rs.590/-
2. 17.09.2003 G.Vani 62887 Rs.590/-
3. 17.09.2003 G.Saraswathy 62904 Rs.590/-
4. 17.09.2003 Krishnakumar 62922 Rs.590/-
5. 17.09.2003 S.Vinupriya 63032 Rs.590/-
6. 18.09.2003 Sandeep Ranjan 63094 Rs.690/-
7. 18.09.2003 Biswajeet sen 63121 Rs.690/-
8. 18.09.2003 G.Prasant 63193 Rs.590/-
9. 18.09.2003 S.Balaji 63112 Rs.690/-
10. 18.09.2003 D.Chistillda Mary 63239 Rs.590/-
11. 18.09.2003 Satyendra Kumar Mourya 63165 Rs.590/-
12. 19.09.2003 Parmar Darshak Jagdishbhai 63394 Rs.590/-
13.
22.09.2003 K.M.Srinivasan 63744 Rs.590/-
14. 22.09.2003 K.Sasanka 63653 Rs.530/-
15. 23.09.2003 M.Padma Priya 64047 Rs.590/-
16. 24.09.2003 D.Eswara Moorthy 64581 Rs.590/-
17. 17.09.2003 S.Thangavel 62690 Rs.590/-
18. 08.10.2003 Dwipin Manohar 65544 Rs.565/-
Thus, the computer print-outs after cancelling the remittance had reflected zero payment and the falsification of account has been committed by the appellant/accused. Therefore, a total sum of Rs.1,49,585/- has been misappropriated by the appellant/accused.
10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would submit that during institutional enquiry proceedings, the appellant has admitted his guilt and repaid around Rs.2 lakhs. However, the total loss incurred by the institution is more than Rs.4 lakhs. The evidence directly against the appellant is with regard to the above said 26 bills towards college fees and 18 bills towards examination fees. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses and marked 223 exhibits. The Trial Court has gone into each and every piece of evidence including the students, who have made the remittance and obtained computer generated fee receipts from the appellant/accused. Since the appellant has generated one copy of the receipt and given to the student, except examination fee receipts, which necessarily to be enclosed along with the examination application form, the students who are given the term fee receipts misplaced the receipts due to efflux of time. Non-production of term fees receipts cannot be taken advantage by the accused. Since the other entries found in the Term Fees Registers, Daily Collection Reports and Abstracts correlate to the 26 receipts issued by the appellant/accused for receipt of term fees and later cancelled it by showing zero remittance after taking computer generated print-outs.
11.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would further submit that as far as the examination fee receipts are concerned, they are all marked as Ex.P.132, Ex.P.133, Ex.P.136, Ex.P.137, Ex.P.139, Ex.P.141, Ex.P.143, Ex.P.145, Ex.P.147, Ex.P.149, Ex.P.151, Ex.P.153, Ex.P.155, Ex.P.157, Ex.P.159, Ex.P.161 and Ex.P.163. In all these receipts, the signature of the appellant/ accused has also been identified and marked. These bills have been generated by the appellant/accused and money has been received from the respective students, who have also been examined as witnesses (P.W.4 to P.W.12). The receipts for which the appellant has received money and issued receipts to the respective students ought to have reflected in the Daily Collection Reports and Abstracts prepared by the appellant/accused. But, by manipulating the computer data, those remittance are not reflected. The money so collected by the appellant/accused has been misappropriated by him, which has later came to light due to Local Audit and Internal Institutional Investigation.
12.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would submit that Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.7, which are DCR Registers for the relevant point of time and the respective entries found in the Registers, the Abstracts for the respective days, which were all generated by the appellant/accused from the computer, which was in his custody, would clearly prove both the charges of misappropriation as well as falsification of account. The appellant/accused being a public servant, misappropriated money and same attracts the provisions of P.C. Act. Therefore, there is no error in the Judgment of the Trial Court holding the appellant/ accused guilty of the offences and there is no ground to interfere.
13.Point for consideration:
?Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to hold that the appellant/accused has misappropriated the money entrusted to him as a Cashier and he falsified the account concealing misappropriation??
14.Admittedly, the appellant/accused is a public servant, serving as Cashier-II (Receipt Cashier) at NIT, Trichy during the relevant point of time. According to P.W.2, the Senior Superintendent, Budget Section of NIT, students used to pay fees under four categories, namely, College Fees, Examination, Library Fine and other miscellaneous fine and Hostel Fees. The payment used to be made either cash or demand draft. For all payments, computer generated receipts used to be issued by the Receipt Cashier. The Senior Superintendent, (Cash and Bills), is the immediate superior officer for the cashier. Except examination fees receipts, all other receipts will be retained by the student. The examination fees receipt will be handed over to the Head of Department along with the examination application form. On completion of the day's transaction, the Cashier has to prepare Collection Report from the computer and he has to prepare Abstract under different heads. The cash collection has to tally with the abstract collection and hand over to the payment cashier along with the computer generated Daily Collection Report and Abstract.
15.In this case, P.W.2 has deposed that P.Mariappan (accused), who served as Receipt Cashier in the Cash Section has manipulated the Daily Collection Report and Abstract by giving false account deleting certain receipts. This discrepancy came to light when the Deputy Registrar Mr.Chockalingam, on deputation from Local Fund Audit, prepared reconciliation statement. The discrepancy has been identified by creating list of zero receipts, which will bear receipt number, but without any cash collection. The zero receipt list compared with the Daily Collection Reports, disclosed that there was actual cash collection under the respective receipt number found in the Zero Receipt List. However, instead of showing the cash actually collected, the computer data has been falsified to indicate that there was no cash received as against the said receipt number. The computer generated Daily Collection Reports though reflected the collection of money under the said receipt number, the Abstract did not reflect the cash collection.
16.This witness has deposed at length and he has identified the exhibits relating to the entire accounts. The modus operandi of the crime to say primarily by the accused is well explained by this witness. The entries in Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16, Daily Cash Balance Registers for the periods from June 2002 to March 2003 and April 2003 to April 2004, have been compared with the Term Fees Register and P.W.2 had deposed how the remittance made by the students towards Tution Fees, Special Fees, Students Aid Fund Fees, library Fees, Computer Fees, Cultural Fees and Medical Fees, Gum Fees, Association Fees have been misappropriated in 26 cases, by manipulating the computer data and showing zero receipt against the respective receipt number. Similarly, this witness has also spoken about the examination fees totally 18 in number, which are not reflected in the corresponding entries in the Daily Cash Balance Register.
17.To corroborate the evidence of P.W.2, besides the documents, the students, namely, P.W.3 to P.W.9, have identified the accused as a person, who has collected fees from them and issued receipts. The Examination Fees Receipts issued by the accused has been identified by them and wherever the receipts lost by the students due to efflux of time, they have deposed about that fact. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of these witnesses, who have completed their course and working elsewhere. If they have not paid respective term fees and examination fees, they would not have been allowed to take up their examination or continue the course. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the appellant/accused, who has received money from them and issued receipts, later had himself or in connivance with some other person, has manipulated and falsified the computer data.
18.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that P.W.16, Tamilarasi is one of the co-signatory in many of the receipts and abstracts, but she has not been arrayed as an accused and tried along with the appellant/accused, though FIR was registered against the appellant/accused and other unknown persons including offence under Section 120-B IPC.
19.P.W.16 has identified her signature in the Abstracts and also in the Daily Cash Balance Registers. Being Senior Superintendent of the institution, she has affixed her signature along with the appellant/accused. Because of the zero receipt list created by the accused, P.W.16 was not able to identify the falsification of the account. Therefore, not including Tamilarasi (P.W.16) as a co-accused is not fatal to the case of the prosecution or advantage to the appellant/accused herein to get an acquittal.
20.In the light of the scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, the defence taken by the appellant/accused that the charge memo issued by the department has been quashed by the High Court and the receipt for payment of Rs.1,52,000/- (Ex.D.2) and receipt for payment of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- (Ex.D.4) and other exhibits relied by him, have no much significance except to mitigate the sentence. The receipt issued by him and non-reflection of the corresponding receipts in the relevant document suffice to hold the appellant/accused guilty.
21.The Trial Court has taken note of the evidence of Rajarathinam (P.W.2), the note put up by him which is marked as Ex.P.17 and the documents identified by him and has held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused to the Court. The explanation given by the appellant/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Trial Court in respect of Ex.P.211 and also the admission made by him in his own handwriting regarding misappropriation. Since the retraction is belated one, the Trial Court has declined to accept the said plea, de hors of Ex.P.211, the other ocular and documentary evidence would clearly point out the guilt of the accused.
22.A comprehensive scrutiny of the Daily Collection Report Registers ((Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7), Zero Collection List (Ex.P.8) Term Fees Registers (Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.14), Daily Collection Balance Registers (Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16) in the light of the report of P.W.2 and his deposition, clearly establishes falsification of accounts. Further the prosecution has clearly proved that the appellant/accused was the author of those records. The collection of money from the respective students is also spoken by the witnesses (P.W.3 to P.W.9). Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. Both the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused is proper and reasonable, which require no interference. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
23.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed in C.C.No.10 of 2005 by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai are confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/ accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.
To
1.The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.