Madras High Court
Aruldass vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 March, 2024
CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 20.12.2023
Pronounced On : 12.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD)No.415 of 2017
Aruldass ... Appellants / Sole
Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.8 of 2004) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records in Special Case No.53 of 2014 on the file of the
learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and set aside the judgment dated
04.10.2017 and acquit the accused/appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Chandra Sekaran
for Mr.N.Subramani
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is the sole accused in Special Case No.53 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, has filed this criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. The learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 04.10.2017 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-
Accused Convicted under Sentence of
Section Imprisonment/
fine imposed
Sole Accused Section 467, 471, Simple Imprisonment
477(A) of IPC of one year for each
offence and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/-, for
each offence in default
to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for three
months for each
offence.
Run concurrently
2.The charges against the appellant are as follows:
(i) The appellant/sole Accused was working as Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings (Construction and Maintenance), 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 Thanjavur, Government Raja Mirasudar Hospital Section, Thanjavur, from 04.06.1998 to 03.09.2002. During the year 1999-2001, the appellant had prepared forged salary list of the NMR labourers, by paying wages less then the Government prescribed wages to the workers and thereby, he misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,07,710/-. Thereafter, the appellant had prepared forged list of the NMR in the name of the fictitious persons and misappropriated a sum of Rs.93,819/- by forging their signatures and preparing documents. Therefore, he is liable to be convicted under Section 409 of IPC.
(ii)The appellant, with an intention to defraud the Government, had given lesser wages to the labourers by preparing forged salary list.
The appellant had prepared forged documents by forging the signature of the fictitious person as labourers. Therefore, he is liable to be convicted under Section 467 of IPC.
(iii)The appellant has prepared forged documents as if some of the persons, who are not labourers, had received the salary by forging their signature. Hence, he is liable to be convicted under Section 471 of IPC. 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
(iv)The appellant is working as a public servant and he with an intention to defraud the Government, had created forged records and manipulated the account book. Hence, he is liable to be convicted under Section 477 (A) of IPC.
(v)The appellant is working as a public servant and he has misappropriated the money of the Government. Hence, he is liable to be convicted under Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Junior Engineer in the Public service Department, (Building and Construction) Thanjavur. The appellant without following rules and regulations, had prepared forged list of NMRs (Non Muster Roll) in the name of the fictitious persons and also prepared forged salary list and issued lesser amount to some of them instead of the amount mentioned in the bill and thereby, he committed misappropriation of Rs.2,01,529/-. The specific case is that he made false entry in the NMR list and he disbursed the amount less than what was mentioned in the bill. The 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 respondent police conducted preliminary enquiry and registered the case in Crime No.8 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477- A of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the appellant, and his superior namely the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer and other persons. After completion of the investigation, they filed final report only against the appellant under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The same was taken on file by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur, in Special Case No.53 of 2014. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and after his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence the trial commenced against the accused.
4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.28 and exhibited 49 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.49. The learned trial Judge thereafter questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 incriminating materials available against the accused from the prosecution evidence. The appellant denied every circumstance and he stated that a false case was registered against him and he filed a written statement which reads as follows:
vjphp bfhLj;j vGj;JK:y thf;FK:yk;:
@,t;tHf;fpy; vdf;F vjpuhf
brhy;yg;gl;Ls;s rhl;rpaj;ij ehd; td;ikahf
kWf;fpnwd;/
ehd; bgha;ahd Mtz';fs; jahh;
bra;atpy;iy/ nghypahd ifbaGj;Jf;fs; vJt[k;
nghltpy;iy/ nkhro vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/ ehd;
Vkhw;W bra;iffs; vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/
bghJ CHpah; vd;w Kiwapy; Jc&;gpunahf
eltof;iffspy; <Lgltpy;iy/ rl;ltpnuhj kw;Wk;
Fw;wbray;fspy; ehd; <Lgltpy;iy/ rhl;rpfs; nghyprhhpd; mwpt[Wj;jypd; nghpy;
bgha;rhl;rpak; brhy;yp cs;sdh;/
vd;/vk;/Mh; Typfs; bghWj;J mDg;gg;gLk;
gl;oaiy cjtpbraw;bghwpahsh; nehpilahf
rhpghh;j;J mjd;gpwF me;j CHpah;fSf;F rk;gsk;
nehpilahf tH';Fthh;/ cjtpbraw;bghwpahsh;
xt;bthU CHpaiua[k; ghh;j;J rk;gsk; gl;Lthlh
bra;thh;/ vdf;F rk;gsk; tH';Fk; mjpfhuk;
fpilahJ/ Ml;fis neuoahf rhpghh;f;fhky;
cjtpbraw;bghwpahsh; rk;gsk; tH';fpajpy;iy/
ehd; bgha; fzf;F vGjpa[k; ,y;yhj egh;fSf;F
gzk; bgw;wjhft[k; TWtJ bgha;/
6/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
rk;gsg; gzj;ij ifahshjepiyapYk;.
rk;gs gl;Lthlh vd;dhy; bra;ag;glhjepiyapYk;
ehd; gz,Hg;g[ Vw;gLj;jpndd; vd;gJ bgha;/
,t;tHf;fpy; g[yd; tprhuiz epahakhf
eilbgwtpy;iy/ ehd; jtnwh. Fw;wk; VJk;
g[hpatpy;iy/
,t;tHf;fpy; mDkjpMiz nghyprhh;
ntz;Ljy; nghpy; ,ae;jpuf;fjpahf
bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ rl;lg;goahdjy;y/
tHf;fpd; Kf;fpa mk;r';fs; fUj;jpy;
bfhs;sg;gltpy;iy/
ehd; Fw;wthsp ,y;iy@/
and thereafter, the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the accused. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on his side.
5.The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence of witnesses and documents, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as stated supra and acquitted the appellant under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred this appeal and the respondent did not file appeal against the acquittal. 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:
6.1.The sum and substance of the charges framed against the appellant is that he manipulated the NMR list and misappropriated the amount and forged the signature of the NMRs and thereby, he committed criminal breach of trust. The said act amounts to criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But the learned trial judge acquitted the appellant under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By acquitting the appellant under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court accepted that there was no entrustment and no evidence was adduced to prove that the appellant has committed any offence of misappropriation. In the said circumstances, the conviction passed against the appellant under Sections under Sections 467, 471 and 477-A of IPC is not legally maintainable.
6.2.The learned trial judge failed to consider that the prosecution witnesses clearly deposed that the appellant has no authority to disburse 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 the salary of the NMR and the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer, who were the deleted accused, alone are responsible for the disbursement of the salary. When there was no entrustment, the allegation of the charge that the appellant disbursed the amount and committed manipulation of the records itself is not legally valid. In this aspect, he relied the various portions of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the conviction under Sections 471 of IPC is not maintainable.
6.3.To prove the allegations that the appellant forged the signature of the beneficiaries, the appellant's signature had not been compared with the disputed signature. Without proof of the forgery of the signature of the beneficiaries, the conviction under Sections 467, 471 and 477-A of IPC is not maintainable. In this regard, he relied on the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the expert opinion. On the basis of the evidence of the investigating officer and expert opinion, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that they only sent the signature of the beneficiaries for getting opinion with the disputed NMR list marked under Ex.Ps.2 to 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, by which prosecution has come forward with this case that the appellant prepared the forged NMR list and on the basis of the NMR list he prepared the bills and received the salary amount and misappropriated the said amount. In the chain of the events, the appellant has no role to play the disbursement of the salary. Even according to the prosecution, the appellant's role is very limited to the extent of preparation of the NMR list. The said preparation of the NMR list ought to have been cross checked by the deleted accused namely the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer and as per the scheme they only ought to have disbursed the amount. In the said circumstances, the allegation that the appellant committed misappropriation, is not legally maintainable.
6.4.The learned counsel further clarified the above submission that the allegation of forgery of the signature of the beneficiaries is quite contrary to the charge that they disbursed lesser amount other than mentioned in the bill. The prosecution either should come forward with the allegation of manipulation of the record, but has come forward with the contrary charge that he manipulated record and disbursed the lesser 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 amount to the individual beneficiaries which is diametrically opposite allegation. To prove the same, the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the appellant.
6.5.The learned counsel further submitted that the beneficiaries were examined. To prove the charges of forgery of the record and manipulation of the account book, they examined the Village Administrative Officer and other beneficiaries. Many number of the beneficiaries deposed before the Court below that they received the portion of the amount mentioned in the list. Some of the witnesses said that they have not received any amount. In the said circumstances, the prosecution is duty bound to prove that the signature found in the alleged forged NMR list is the signature of the appellant. As per the evidence of the investigating officer, the appellant's signature has not been compared with the disputed signature. There was no evidence to prove that the signature of the appellant was found in the forged NMR list. The learned trial judge erroneously gave a finding that the appellant has not denied the signature. The appellant specifically denied the signature under section 313 questioning and he disputed all the documents. In the said 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.
6.6.The learned counsel further submitted that initially the FIR was registered against the appellant and other higher officials. As per the prosecution case, higher officials alone are competent persons, who verified the alleged records prepared by the appellant and disbursed the amount. In the said circumstances, the claim that the appellant disbursed the amount is not proved. In the said circumstances, the deletion of the other accused in the final report itself shows that there is unfair investigation and the real accused have been deleted by the investigating agency and thereby the conviction against the appellant is in violation of the article 14 of the Constitution of India. Without any concrete evidence, it is alleged that the appellant alone committed the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC. In support of his version, he relied on the following Judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court:
(i) In the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan in Crl.A.No.1050 of 2022.12/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
(ii) In the case of Harnam Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.).
(iii) In the case of T.Selvaraj Vs. Central Government in Crl.A.Nos.639 to 645 of 1998.
(iv) In the case of Jarnail Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab reported in CDJ 2022 SC 758.
(v) In the case of A.Srinivasulu VS. The State in Crl.A.No. 2417 of 2010.
(vi) In the case of Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam reported in CDJ 2013 SC 467.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:
7.1.The appellant never denied the signature in the alleged NMR list. Therefore, the learned trial judge correctly held that he had forged the signature. He further submitted that the deletion of some of the accused is not a ground to acquit the accused. The evidence of the prosecution clearly proved the charges against the appellant under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC.
13/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 7.2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the order of acquittal passed under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not a legal impediment. He further submitted that the charges under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC are clearly proved against the appellant through the evidence of beneficiaries and Village Administrative Officers. Some of the beneficiaries clearly deposed that they received lesser amount than the amounts mentioned in the receipt. Some of the beneficiaries stated that the appellant received the amount by forging their signature and hence, the finding of the learned trial judge for the above said offence is legally sustainable. The learned trial judge considering all the aspects including the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the explanation, found that the charge against the appellant is clearly proved.
7.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that P.W.4 is the superintendent of the appellant's office. The appellant had prepared the NMR list. After preparation of the NMR List, he 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 submitted the same to the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer for verification. The Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer had verified the same and sanctioned the amount. They deposed that the contents of Exs.P.2 and 3 were written by the appellant. Therefore, the contents of Exs.P.2 and 3 are clear that the appellant alone manipulated the records. Hence, he seeks for the confirmation of the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the records and also the impugned judgement and the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
9.Now the question is whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant under Sections 467, 471, 477(A) of the IPC is sustainable after acquitting the accused under the charges 409 of IPC and 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
10.The appellant/sole Accused was working as Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings (Construction and Maintenance), Thanjavur, Government Raja Mirasudar Hospital Section, Thanjavur, from 04.06.1998 to 03.09.2002. He used to prepare the NMR list and he used NMR labourers to discharge their duty. To disburse the salary, he prepared the salary bills. After preparing the NMR list and salary bills, he got approval from the higher officials. After getting approval from the higher officials, he disbursed lesser amount to the beneficiaries instead of disbursing the correct amount to each beneficiaries. Some times, he, without disbursing any amount to the beneficiaries, misappropriated the said amount. Hence, the appellant faced the following two allegations;
(i)The appellant disbursed lesser amount other than the amount mentioned in the receipt prepared by the appellant.
(ii)The appellant prepared the forgery receipt as if the alleged amount was disbursed to the NMR, without disbursing the same to the said NMR.
16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
11.On the side of the prosecution, two types of evidence were adduced to prove the above charge. Some beneficiaries deposed that they received only lesser amount other than the amount mentioned in the receipt. The beneficiaries also admitted that they received lesser amount. Some of the beneficiaries admitted that they received lesser amount some times and some times they did not receive any amount and the false entry was made in the account book as if they received the amount. It is the evidence of the officials that as per the scheme, the appellant has no authority to disburse the amount to the NMR and his limited role is to prepare the NMR list and submit the same to the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer. As per the scheme, they only are bound to verify the NMR list prepared by the appellant and make spot verification and directly disburse the amount to the beneficiaries after getting acknowledgement. The further evidence of the officials is that the appellant has no role to disburse the salary amount and the same was fortified from the following evidence of the witnesses.
17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 P.W.2 P.W.3 vj;jid vd;/vk;/Mh;/?fs; ntiy vd;/vk;/Mh;/?fSf;F bra;ayhk; vd;W cj;jutpLtJ rk;gsk; gl;Lthlh braw;bghwpahsh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ bra;tJ cjtp v!;/o/X/ rk;gsk; bfhLf;Fk; nghJ braw;bghwpahsh;fs; rk;gsk; bgWk; vd;/vk;/Mh;fs; jhd;/ rk;gsk; xt;bthUtiua[k; nehpy; rhpghh;j;J gl;Lthlh bra;a[k; rk;gsk; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;why; nghJ mtnu rhpjhd;/ mjw;fhd urPJk; bgw;W neuoahf xt;bthU bfhs;thh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ rk;gsk; vk;/vd;/MU?f;Fk; tH';f ,sk;bghwpahsUf;F gl;Lthlh bra;a mjpfhuk; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ntz;Lk; vd;why; v!;/o/X/f;fSf;F kl;Lk; jhd; mjpfhuk; rhpjhd;/ cs;sJ vd;whYk; rhpjhd;/ vjphp vd;.vk;.Mh;fis Ntiyf;F mkh;j;jNth rk;gsk; nfhLf;fNth mjpfhuk; ,y;yhjth; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
12.From the above evidence, it is clear that there was no entrustment of the salary amount with the appellant and he has no role to disburse the amount. Further, as admitted by the investigating officer/ P.W.23 that he had not sent the appellant's signature for getting expert 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 opinion. The investigating officer also admitted that the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer alone should have disbursed the salary amount on the spot to each person in the NMR lists and the same is proved through the evidence of the P.W.28, which reads as follows:
“xt;bthU vd;/vk;/MhplKk; fsj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk;
V/, my;yJ V/,/, rk;gsj;ij bfhLj;Jtpl;L urPJ bgwntz;Lk; vd;why; rhpjhd;”/
13.In the said circumstances the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC. The prosecution examined P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21. To prove the same, some of the NMR labourers who have not worked in the relevant period deposed that they received lesser amount.
But they stated that their monthly salary amount is around Rs.2,500/-, but they have received only Rs.1,300/-. It is settled principle that when they admitted the receipt of the portion of the amount, they must produce the evidence to disprove the claim that they have not received the entire consideration mentioned in the document.
19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
14.From the above evidence, when the receipt clearly disclosed that they received Rs.2,500/-, contra oral evidence that they received only Rs.1,300/- is not legally acceptable one. In this case, except the oral evidence of each individuals, there is no other evidence to prove that amount disbursed was not the same as mentioned in the receipt.
15.In the said circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the appellant has handed over lesser amount other than mentioned in the receipt. The appellant specifically denied the signature in the NMR list and the receipt during 313 Cr.P.C., questioning. As per the investigating officer, they did not send any document to prove the signature found in the NMR list and no steps were taken to prove the same. On the side of the prosecution, no evidence was adduced to show that the signature found in the forged NMR list is the signature of the appellant. The appellant forged the signature in the NMR list is the foundational fact to be proved by the prosecution and hence, the conviction under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC is not made out. Hence, in all aspects, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 alleged offences. Hence, this court finds that the learned trial judge committed error in recording the following findings.
15.1.The learned trial Judge's finding that the appellant has not denied the signature found in the disputed forgery bills and the receipts is erroneous one, which is contrary to the specific denial of the appellant. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant alone forged the signature of the beneficiaries in the receipt. Without the above foundational facts, the case of the prosecution that the appellant is said to have committed offences under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC is not legally maintainable. In this case, it is the specific evidence of the investigating officer that he found that the other officers were also involved the misappropriation. But, he deleted the other accused without any reason. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.28 is as follows:
Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; ,e;j vjphpia
jtpu nkYk; 3 cah; mjpfhhpfSk; Fw;w braypy;
rk;ke;jg;gl;Ls;shh;fs; vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ
vd;why; rhpjhd;/
ehd; jhf;fy; bra;j br';rd; Mh;lhpy;
kw;wth;fs; rk;ke;jg;gl;oUf;fpwhh;fs; vd;nwh Fw;w 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 eltof;ifapy; <Lgl;oUf;fpwhh;fsh vd;nwh ehd; Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy (m/rh/M/1y; brhy;ytpy;iy) vd; mwpf;ifapy; vjphp kl;Lnk Fw;wk; bra;jjhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ kw;wth;fs;
gw;wp Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy/ Mdhy; ehd;
Mtz';fis ghh;j;j tifapy; vjphpa[ld; nrh;e;J kw;w K:d;W nkw; bghwpahsh;fSk; jtW bra;jJ bjhpate;jJ/
16.In the said circumstances, the filing of the final report against the appellant without any entrustment and without any proof that he disbursed the amount is not in accordance with law. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant forged the signature of the beneficiaries. To prove the same, his signature was not compared with the disputed signature of the witnesses namely P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5. Therefore, without any material to prove that the appellant alone forged the signature of the beneficiaries in the receipt, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge is against law. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant under Sections 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC. 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
17.Conclusion:
According to the prosecution, the appellant manipulated the NMR list and misappropriated the amount. To misappropriate the amount, he forged the signature of the NMR in the receipt and the corresponding documents. He is entrusted with the amount to disburse the same to the NMR. Therefore, the charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477(A) of IPC and 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial judge acquitted the appellant under Section 409 of IPC holding that the prosecution failed to prove the entrustment of the salary amount with the appellant. He also acquitted the appellant under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the investigating agency without any reason has not filed final report against the higher officials, who are the responsible for the disbursement of the salary to the NMR list. Further, there was a finding that the case of the witnesses that they received the lesser amount is not acceptable one. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned trial judge erroneously convicted the appellant under Sections 467, 471, 477(A) of IPC without any evidence to prove the fact that the petitioner forged the signature of the NMR's in 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 the receipt and other documents. As discussed earlier, at the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the investigating agency has not obtained the signature of the appellant and compared the same with the disputed signature of the NMRs in the receipt. Therefore, without any material the learned trial judge erroneously convicted the appellant and passed the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction passed in Special Case No.53 of 2014.
18.In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, in Special Case No.53 of 2014, dated 04.10.2017, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Bail bond if any executed by him, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded forthwith. The appellant is set liberty, unless his presence is required in any other case.
12.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
vsg
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021
To
1.The Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.148 of 2021 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
vsg Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.415 of 2017 12.03.2024 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis