Madras High Court
R.Sekar vs State By on 30 December, 2015
2025:MHC:2325
Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 21.07.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016
R.Sekar ... Appellant/Accused No.2 in
Crl.A.No.28 of 2016
A.Selvaraju ... Appellant/Accused No.1 in
Crl.A.No.32 of 2016
State Represented by
CBI, ACB, Chennai ... Appellant/Complainant in
Crl.A.No.769 of 2016
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police
SPE/CBI/ACB
Chennai.
Charge Sheet No.1/KSN/2009
R.C.49(A)/2008/SPE/CBI/ACB
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant in
both the Crl.A.Nos.28 and 32 of 2016
A.Selvaraju ... Respondent/Accused in
Crl.A.No.769 of 2016
Page 1 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm )
Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016
Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.28 and 32 of 2016: Criminal Appeals filed under Section
374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence
made in C.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (CBI
Cases), Coimbatore dated 30.12.2015 and acquit the accused.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.769 of 2016: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence made in
C.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases),
Coimbatore dated 30.12.2015 and acquit the accused.
For the Appellant in : Mr.K.Shankar
Crl.A.No.28 of 2016
For the Appellant in : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
Crl.A.No.32 of 2016
For the Appellant in : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Crl.A.No.769 of 2016 Special Public Prosecutor
(CBI Cases)
For the Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
in Crl.A.Nos.28 and 32 of Special Public Prosecutor
2016 (CBI Cases)
For the Respondent : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
in Crl.A.No.32 of 2016
Page 2 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm )
Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
A.The Appeal:
In C.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore, two accused, namely A. Selvaraju and R. Sekar, were prosecuted based on the final report by the Inspector of Police, SPI /CBI/ACB, Chennai. By a judgment dated 30.12.2015, the accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
Name and Result Sentence
Rank of the
Appellant
A.Selvaraju A1 found guilty of an offence For offence punishable u/s.
Accused – 1 / punishable u/s. 120-B of IPC, 13 i) 120-B of IPC A1 - Rigorous
Appellant in counts of offence punishable u/s. Imprisonment for three years
Crl.A. No. 32 of 468 of IPC, 3 counts of offence and to pay a fine of Rs..1000/-,
2016 punishable u/s. 471 of IPC and in default of payment of fine,
offence punishable u/s. 420 of IPC, Simple Imprisonment for one
month
ii) 468 of IPC (13 counts) for
each count A1 - Rigorous
Imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs..1000/-,
in default of payment of fine
for each count, Simple
Imprisonment for one month
iii) 471 of IPC (3 counts) for each
count - Rigorous
Page 3 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm )
Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016
Imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.,
in default of payment of fine
for each count, Simple
Imprisonment for one month
iv) 420 of IPC - Rigorous
Imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-
in default of payment of fine,
Simple Imprisonment for one
month.
R.Sekar A2 found guilty of an offence For offence punishable u/s.
Accused - 2 / punishable u/s. 120-B of IPC, 3 i) 120-B of IPC A2 - Rigorous
Appellant in counts of offence punishable u/s. Imprisonment for three years
Crl.A. No. 28 of 468 of IPC and 3 counts of offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-,
2016 punishable u/s. 471 of IPC and in default of payment of fine,
offence punishable u/s. 420 of IPC. Simple Imprisonment for one
month,
ii) 468 (3 counts) of IPC for each
count - Rigorous Imprisonment
for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1000/-, in default of
payment of fine for each count,
Simple Imprisonment for one
month and for the offence
punishable u/s.
iii) 471( 3 counts ) of IPC for each
count - Rigorous Imprisonment
for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/-, in default of
payment of fine for each count,
Simple Imprisonment for one
month,
iv) 420 of IPC - Rigorous
Imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-,
in default of payment of fine,
Simple Imprisonment for one
Page 4 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm )
Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016
month.
A1 found not guilty of 2 counts of -
A.Selvaraju an offence punishable u/s. 468 of
Accused – 1 / IPC and 12 counts of offence
Respondent in punishable u/s.471 of IPC and 5
Crl.A. No. 769 counts of offence punishable u/s.
of 2016 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and A1 is
acquitted from 2 counts of charges
Prosecution framed against him for the offence
preferred appeal punishable u/s. 468 of IPC and 12 against acquittal counts of charges framed against of Accused 1 him for the offence punishable u/s.471 of IPC and 5 counts of charges framed against him for the offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w.
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
1.1. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Accused No.1 preferred the Crl.A.No.32 of 2016; Accused No.2 preferred the Crl.A.No.28 of 2016. The prosecution aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had preferred the Crl.A.No.769 of 2016. As such, all these appeals are taken up and disposed of together by this common Judgment. Page 5 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 B. The Case of the Prosecution:
2. On 29.09.2008, the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai, received information that during January 2008, accused No.1, while working as a Senior Store Keeper in the Disposal Section of MM Stores Department at Salem Steel Plant, a unit of the Steel Authority of India, a Government of India Undertaking, misused and abused his official position to enter into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Trichy RK Steel and Alloys Private Limited, (hereinafter 'Trichy RK Steels') No.37/6, Karur Main Road, Kambarasanpettai, Trichy, at Salem and other locations. The conspiracy aimed to cheat the Salem Steel Plant in the disposal of scrap materials, causing wrongful loss of approximately Rs.9 Lakhs and gaining unlawfully for themselves. Details revealed that between 09.07.2007 and 16.10.2007, the disposal section received nine truckloads of commercial-grade SS scrap of AISI 304 from the Works Department of Sale, totaling 23.33 tonnes.
This material was assigned lot No.93040008056 and deposited at location No.710. Entries were made on the lot information card, indicating the scrap as AISI 304 grade.
Page 6 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 2.1 Entries were also made in the computer on 05.01.2008. The accused No.1 made an unauthorized transfer entry into the computer, transferring the entire scrap of AISI Grade 304 under the lot No.930400088056 to lot No.920000088151 of a lower grade, AISI 200, knowing fully well that the scrap belonged to AISI 304. Accordingly, he made further corrections in the lot card by erasing the original numbers and overwriting them. Additional corrections were also made regarding the grade by erasing 304 and overwriting it with SSLN, which is of grade 200. In one of the copies, the voucher dated 06.07.2007 was altered by cutting the grade 304 and writing SSLN by hand with his initials. On 05.01.2008, a proposal was made for the disposal of the said scrap, including the above lots. The Committee set the reserve price at Rs.36,000/-, considering that the scrap was AISI 200. However, for the AISI 304 grade scrap, the reserve price would have been set above Rs.1 Lakh. The e-auction was conducted by M/s Metal Junction on 18.01.2008. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the Trichy RK Steels Limited quoted Rs.50,500/- for AISI 200 scrap, fully aware that the scrap belonged to AISI 304. The firm became the successful bidder and took delivery of the entire scrap material on 30.01.2008, paying Rs.14,47,246/- for 23.33 tonnes. Thus, it was revealed that the accused No.1 made those unauthorized Page 7 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 entries and fabricated documents, thereby enabling accused No.2 to unlawfully benefit.
2.2 Since the above information revealed the commission of offences punishable under Section 120 B read with 420, 468, 471 of IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a case in RC MA No.2008 A 0049 was registered by P.W.18 – Nageswaran, Inspector of Police, who took the case for investigation, completed the investigation, and laid a final report proposing the guilt of the accused for the offences.
C.The Trial Court and the Judgment:
3. Upon issue of summons and the accused's appearance on 30.12.2010, six charges were framed against the accused, and the accused pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
3.1. In fact, after completing the evidence and considering the arguments of the defense and prosecution, the charges were once again re-framed. To Page 8 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 establish the charges, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined, and documents in Exs.P1 to 84 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
3.2. When questioned about the incriminating circumstances and material evidence on record under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied them and also filed a detailed statement of defense. Subsequently, D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the accused. Exs.D1 and D2 were also marked.
3.3. The Trial Court proceeded to consider the case of the prosecution and that of the accused, and after appreciating the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offences as previously mentioned. The court sentenced them accordingly and also acquitted them of certain charges. Aggrieved by this, appeals have been filed on either side as stated above. D.The Arguments:
4. Heard, M r. R . E z h il a r a s a n, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused No.1; M r. K . S h a n k ar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page 9 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 accused No.2 and M r. K . S r i n iv a s a n , the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI.
4.1. M r. E z h il a r a s a n, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st accused / appellant in Crl.A.No.32 of 2016, would firstly submit that a perusal of the entire evidence on record clearly shows that it was not only the accused No.1 who was responsible for the classification and maintenance of records regarding the scrap materials. The internal inquiry implicated several officials; however, for reasons best known to them, they tried to make the accused, who was only a Store Keeper Grade II, the scapegoat for the entire episode. The scientific evidence did not conclusively prove that the accused tampered with physical records such as lot cards and computer entries. In fact, comparison of writings in certain exhibits revealed that they did not belong to accused No.1. This indicates that other officials were involved rather than accused No.1. The company's subsequent conduct—entering negotiations with the second accused, receiving the remaining amount from them, and continuing the supply— demonstrates that there can be no conspiracy between accused No.1 and accused No.2. There is no evidence suggesting any pecuniary gain for accused No.1. Page 10 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 Furthermore, there is no evidence of any conspiracy between accused No.1 and accused No.2. The entire process of lot allocation and classification was conducted in stages, and accused No.1, being only a Storekeeper at the end point, could not have engaged in any wrongdoing.
4.2. The learned counsel would also guide this Court through various answers given during cross-examination and the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, arguing that the prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy or forgery by accused No.1. The learned counsel would assert that the Trial Court relied solely on surmises and conjectures, which warrants interference by this Court. Initially, the charges themselves were not properly framed, and regarding the amended charges, there is no clear evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.
4.3. Mr.Sh a n k ar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused No.2, submits that it should be noted that the grade of the scrap materials, whether it is 304 or another grade, cannot be identified with the naked eye. Page 11 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 Secondly, even the Vigilance Officer who intercepted the materials at the weighing bridge did not suspect the quality of the scrap. There is absolutely no evidence to show that accused No.2 had any knowledge that the material supplied to them was of grade 304. The accused No.2 was merely an authorized person to take delivery of the auctioned materials on behalf of the company, Trichy RK Steels. The company had duly participated in and won the e-auction for lot No. 8151. In fact, P.W.2 has categorically admitted that the difference in quality cannot be distinguished with the naked eye. When the Department of Material Management informed RK Steel that they had wrongly taken away 304 grade materials, the company protested and was willing to redeliver the scrap materials. However, after prolonged discussions and several meetings, P.W.10 convinced RK Steels, to pay the difference of Rs. 17,86,309/-. To preserve its good rapport and relationship with Salem Steel Plant, RK Steels paid the amount. P.W.10 has categorically admitted these facts. It is evident that the price difference between 200 grade and 304 grade is only Rs. 13,78,000/-, but RK Steels was made to pay Rs. 17,86,309/-, which is Rs. 4,08,309/- more. Page 12 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 4.4. In fact, the Salem Steel Plant did not even file any complaint, never blacklisted RK Steels, and continued its relationship even after the registration of the First Information Report. These facts have been confirmed by the Investigating Officer – P.W.18. It should be noted that a total of 68 lots of scrap were put up for e-auction on 18.01.2008, with RK Steels bidding for lot Nos. 3126, 3142, and 8151. It is also clear that there were no issues with the other two lots. Since the prosecution has not proved forgery in Exs. P3, P9, and P32— documents stored in a secure area guarded by CISF inside Salem Steel Plant— the prosecution’s allegation is unfounded. Without any evidence of a conspiracy between A1 and A2, the prosecution’s case is likely to fail.
4.5. Apart from this, RK Steels or its other Directors were never prosecuted. The accused No. 2 was merely an employee who was later promoted to a Director. He also transferred the shares he owned to other Directors. Subsequently, he left RK Steels; however, he faced the above proceedings. Therefore, this should be taken into account, and the appeal should be allowed. Page 13 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 4.6. P e r c o n t r a, M r. K . S r i n iv a s a n , the learned Senior Special Public Prosecutor, would submit that once the Trial Court found that there is a conspiracy between A1 and A2, there was unlawful pecuniary gain, as the records were fabricated. The higher quality scraps were supplied to A2 and his company at a lower price, which was meant to be of lesser quality. It goes without saying that A1 abused his official position and caused pecuniary loss to Salem Steel Plant and unlawful pecuniary gain to accused No. 2, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy. As such, he ought not to have been acquitted of the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Senior Counsel would point out the material evidence on record. He argued that it is only accused No. 1, who was the custodian of the relevant records. During the departmental inquiry, accused No. 1 admitted to each of his actions but stated that he had done so at the direction of his superiors. This also constitutes an extra judicial confession and can be considered by this Court as corroborating evidence.
4.7. In fact, the prosecution witnesses stated that accused No.1 was responsible for maintaining the specific lot 8151, and the handwriting on the lot Page 14 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 card mentioning SSLN, which was of lower quality, belonged to him. The accused provided no credible explanation for this material. It appears that once the conspiracy was uncovered, Accused No. 2 also paid the difference in amount, indicating that they had taken higher-quality material. The prosecution witnesses clearly testified about how the documents were forged to support Accused No.2 and how Accused No.1 was solely in charge of the entire matter.
4.8 The learned Special Public Prosecutor would also take this Court through the relevant portions of the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Thus, he would submit that the appeal filed by the accused be dismissed and the appeal filed by the prosecution be allowed.
E. The Discussion and Findings:
5. I have examined the rival submissions from both sides and reviewed the case's material records. In this case, there is no direct evidence of a conspiracy between Accused No.1 and 2. However, a conspiracy hatched in secrecy can also be established through circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the materials in relation to the proof of other offences to deduce the Page 15 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 concerted action.
5.1. The genesis of this case began with PW-2 and PW-3 conducting a surprise inspection of a vehicle waiting to pass out of the premises on 30.01.2008. They found that the weight exceeded the permissible limit (1.3%), and they ordered Accused No. 1 to follow the required procedure regarding the excess weight. The next day, upon follow-up, they discovered that Accused No. 1 had not followed the procedure, and all entries related to the lot had been overwritten and tampered with. During a detailed inspection of the lot, they observed that seven items were of 304 grade instead of 200 grade, which was auctioned at a lower price. Regarding the remaining two items, documents were reported missing; however, based on other entries, those two items also appeared to be of 304 grade. As a result, the management directed a thorough investigation, revealing that similar fraud was occurring with other auctioned goods sold to third parties, and these goods were not dispatched. A detailed report was submitted as Ex.P66 on 10.03.2008. Additionally, they collected specimen signatures and writings, which were sent for forensic examination, resulting in a report from the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, dated Page 16 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 21.04.2008, marked as Ex.P64.
5.2. The report first considered the allegations, took into account the systems, procedures, and practices followed at the time, and uncovered the facts. The report analyzes the facts in detail. Thereafter, conclusions are drawn. The documents that were tampered with and forged, as well as the lots that were changed to favor private third parties, are categorically mentioned. In para 7.13 of the report, it states that B.Purushotaman, the Manager, and the Accused No. 1, Selavaraju, appear to be responsible for the irregularities in changing the grant and lot number in the computer and lot cards. Mr. Prabakaran, AGM's role in dispatch to RK Steels on 30.01.2008, is not beyond suspicion and had to be probed. In fact, the report records that his answers to PW-2 were completely evasive.
5.3. It can be seen that the specific details in the First Information Report in Ex.P83, which was registered much later on 29.09.2008, contain most of the information from the report. In any case, the report was collected by the prosecution and even marked as a document. The investigation officer was Page 17 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 cross-examined in detail about Ex.P66 report, and it is clear that the Investigation Officer had full knowledge of it.
5.4. What the prosecution has done is that, through the evidence of P.W.2 and PW.3, they established that it was Accused No. 1 who was dispatching the goods on behalf of Salem Steel Plant. Secondly, despite instructions from P.W.2 to follow the correct procedure regarding the excess weight, the accused did not do so. On the contrary, the accused further tampered with Exhibit P.3, the lot information card, by correcting the weight in serial no. 7 from 2.110 to 2.440, which is marked as Exhibit Q1 in PW-2’s inquiry. Furthermore, through PW-5 and PW-12, it was established that the corrections related to the weight and the correction regarding the quality as SSLN in Exhibit P3 were made by the accused. It can be seen that Exhibits P64 and P65, the forensic reports obtained by PW-2, do not contain any information regarding these corrections. In fact, PW-2 explicitly testified that he collected specimen writings of the accused and other officials involved and sent these tampered documents for forensic analysis. Although the report offers an opinion that some entries were tampered with, there is nothing in Exhibit P64 to conclusively state whether it was done by the Page 18 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 accused or not.
5.5. The investigating officer did not consider it appropriate to refer these incriminating documents, along with the existing admitted signatures and specimen signatures, for examination so that a definitive opinion could be obtained regarding many of the corrected entries, including the change of lot number to 8151. He admits in his cross-examination that he never examined the authors or experts who rendered Exhibit P.64 and did not cite them as witnesses.
5.6. Furthermore, when Exhibit P 64 report categorically indicates the involvement of manager Purushotaman, the investigating officer, during cross- examination, admits that he examined Purushotaman but did not record any 161 statement nor cited him as a witness. More importantly, although the enquiry report highlights the active involvement of Prabhakaran, the Assistant General Manager, the investigating officer admits in cross-examination that he never examined him and did not cite him as a witness. The failure to examine Prabhakaran is significant in this case. Firstly, it appears that even after discovering that RK Steels had cheated Salem Steel Plant by taking higher Page 19 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 quality materials, resulting in a loss of about 17 lakhs for one lot, the management only negotiated with them and recovered the amount. RK Steels was never blacklisted. The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and defence evidence shows that RK Steels continued to do business with Salem Steel Plant; even after the criminal case was registered, several lots were auctioned and supplied to RK Steels. This raises a serious question: would management have taken such actions if RK Steels had colluded with a lower- level officer like Accused No. 1? In this context, when the prosecution produced the statement of Accused No. 1 during the departmental enquiry and marked it as Exhibit P.67, Accused No. 1 stated the following:
“ … … B e f o r e m a k i n g i n v o i c e I c o n t a c t e d o v e r p h o n e M r. M . P r a b h a k a r a n, A G M ( M M - st o r e s ) a b o u t e x c e s s 3 1 0 k g s, a n d M r. M . P r a b h a k a r a m A G M ( M M - st o r e s ) i n st r u c t e d m e t h at a s p e r t h e w e i g h b r i d g e w e i g h m e n t s li p y o u m a y r a i s e th e i n v o i c e a n d s e n d t h e m a t e r i a l t o t h e p a r t y. A s a S r. S t o r e k e e p e r, I h a v e o b e y e d t h e i n st r u c ti o n s o f M r. M . P r a b h a k a r a n, A G M ( M M - st o r e s ) a n d d i s c h a r g e d m y d u t y. H e n c e , th e r e w a s n o w i llf ull n e s s, d e l i b r at e n e s s o r a n y m o t iv e i n v o l v e d i n n o t if yi n g s u c h 3 1 0 k g s i n th e w e i g h t c o l u m n.
W i t h r e g a r d t o p a r a - 2 o f t h e st at e m e n t, I s u b m it t h at t h e l ot o f i nf o r m a ti o n w a s fill e d b y M r. N . S e l v a r a j a n, A s s t. S t o r e K e e p e r, i n c o l u m n N o s . 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 a n d I fill e d t h e c o l u m n N o s . 1 , 4 & 9 o n l y. T h e c o l u m n N o . 7 w a s Page 20 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 c h a n g e d b y m e a s p e r t h e i n st r u c ti o n s g iv e n b y M r. M . P r a b h a k a r a n, A G M ( M M - st o r e s ) o v e r p h o n e . I d o n o t kno w the c o nse q u e n c e there of a n d I h ave n ot d o n e i nt e nti o n a l l y. H e n c e th e m a l a f i d e i nt e nti o n o f c o m m itti n g f r a u d d o e s n o t a r i s e ” ( E m p hasis s u p plied) 5.7. When the prosecution relies on the same as an extrajudicial confession, for the reasons recorded above, it can be seen that the above statements are highly probable and can be true. And thus it raises a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.
5.8. The same applies to Accused No. 2. When RK Steels is the company alleged to have cheated Salem Steel Plant, the company itself was not added as an accused. It is not always necessary to include the company or its other directors as accused; but in this case, the focus is on Accused No. 2, simply because he came to take delivery of the lot. Although he is also a Director, his position can be inferred from his duties. It is the case of Accused No. 2 that he was only an employee. Even the shares in his name were subsequently transferred to other owners, and he was also relieved of his Directorship. In this context, it is important to note that there is no evidence suggesting that Accused No. 2 was personally involved in any conspiracy, especially with Accused No. 1. Page 21 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 5.9. From PW-14's testimony, it is clear that when the weighment exceeded the limit, Accused No. 1 made a phone call and only afterward claimed that the weight was correct and that the information on the card was erroneous. This aspect was not investigated. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution did not conduct any meaningful investigation and merely filed a final report based on tampered lot information card. Even with reference to the computer entry, the investigating officer admits that there is yet another Prabhakaran who is the executive assistant, responsible for entering lot details and other data into the computer; notably, he was also not examined.
5.10. When the entire offense was committed by changing the place, changing the lot number, tampering the computer generated slip that is issued by the mill end, tampering the entries in the computer, entering into a conspiracy with the private bidder, absolutely without investigating into each and every aspect of it merely because the Accused No. 1 is believed to have been tampered some of the entries and the Accused No. 2 took delivery, charge has been levelled against them. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the element of dishonest intention on the part of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. For Page 22 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 the above reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and the findings of the trial court are unsustainable.
F. The Result:
6. In the result:
i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 28 and 32 of 2016 stands allowed;
ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants vide judgment dated 30.12.2015 in CC No. 5 of 2009 by the Learned II Additional District Judge (CBI cases) Coimbatore stands set aside; The fine amount if any paid shall stand refunded.
iii) The Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 2016 shall stand dismissed.
07.10.2025 Neutral Citation : Yes Jer Page 23 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 To
1. The II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB Chennai.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
4.The Section Officer High Court of Madras.
Page 24 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm ) Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Jer Criminal Appeal Nos.28, 32 and 769 of 2016 07.10.2025 Page 25 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 08:46:35 pm )