Madras High Court
A.Elangovan vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 February, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 &
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6624 of 2021
1.A.Elangovan
2.R.Muruganandham ...Petitioners
vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
C.C.I.W - CID,
Pudhukottai,
Pudhukottai District.
(Crime No.1 of 2021)
2.Sulthan Maideen ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.10 of 2021 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhukottai and quash the same
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Malaikani
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R1
ORDER
Seeking to abort the final report in C.C.No.10 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhukottai, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed by the accused 2 and 3.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows. 2.1. The Tamil Nadu Marketing Federation [ hereinafter referred as 'TANFED'] having its headquarters in Chennai is a State level Co-operative Agency which supplies various kinds of fertilizers to the farmers at subsidized rates through Regional Offices functioning at every District where from fertilizers are being sent to all the Primary Agricultural Societies. The farmers purchase the fertilizers from the Primary Agricultural Societies either by cash or on credit basis. TANFED is also having its registered office and godown at Pudhukottai District. The first petitioner (A2) was working as a senior assistant for the period 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 from 09.02.2011 to 02.05.2011 at Pudhukottai TANFED. The second petitioner (A3) was an internal auditor for the period from 04.08.2011 to 31.03.2012 at Pudhukottai Regional Office. Both of them are responsible for receiving fertilizers from various suppliers and to dispatch the same to Primary Co-operative Credit Societies as and when required. They would also collect money for the sales made by them. The second petitioner (A3) is expected to conduct audit periodically and also monitor the sales and purchases. Thereafter, he should remit the sale proceeds and report the same to the authorities concerned. An inspection was conducted in the godown for the period 01.04.2011 - 31.03.2012 and it was found that there was a deficit of stock of 25 metric tons of fertilizers causing loss to TANFED to the tune of Rs.2,82,500/-. In fact, both the petitioners had falsely claimed a sum of Rs.23,115.75/- towards lorry charges and towards loading and unloading of fertilizers without actually sending the fertilizers to Primary Co-operative Credit Societies. Thus, they have caused loss to TANFED to the tune of Rs.3,05,615.75/-. They have not also maintained transportation receipts and receipts for labour charges. They did not also verify the physical stock then and there. Therefore, the 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 Deputy Registrar (Full Additional Incharge), combined Co-operative Enclave, Annavasal Road, Pudhukottai lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, CCIW-CID, Pudhukottai against the present petitioners and one Duraisamy (A1), which was registered as FIR in Crime No.1/2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 468, 471, 477A read with 34, 109 IPC. The Inspector of Police, CCIW - CID, Pudhukottai after conducting investigation laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhukottai in C.C.No.10 of 2021 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 34, 201, 255 and 120B IPC.
3. Mr.S.Malaikani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Stock Verification Statement of Chemical Fertilizers by one Thiru.Neelavannan, Co-operative Audit Officer shows that there was no deficit in the stock as on 31.03.2012 and this aspect has not been considered by the Investigation Officer. His further contention is that though the alleged occurrence took place during the period between 01.10.2011 and 31.10.2011, First Information Report has been 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 registered belatedly in the year 2021 and it is also contrary to the proceedings initiated under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act [hereinafter referred as 'the Act' in short]. According to him, there was no actual loss to the defacto complainant (the second respondent). It is his further submission that there are no ingredients to attract the provisions under Sections 408, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 34, 201, 255 and 120B IPC. He also drew the attention of this Court to the Domestic Enquiry Report conducted by the enquiry officer and contended that there was no shortage of fertilizers as alleged by the prosecution. His next contention is that this Court had quashed the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act in W.P.(MD)Nos.16723, 16729 and 16731/2019 dated 15.07.2020 on the ground that surcharge proceedings are initiated after the expiry of 7 years. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901/2018 dated 02.03.2022 wherein a single Judge of this Court, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.Ilangovan, had held that when the Internal Auditor was holding additional incharge for more than three societies, lapse on the part of godown keeper cannot be attributed to him. According to him, since the present petitioners were 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 not directly involved in the commission of offence and they were in supervisory cadre, they cannot be fastened with criminal liability.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that the Police after conducting proper investigation had laid a final report and there are no good grounds to quash the same. According to him, the decision in W.P.(MD)Nos. 16723, 16729 and 16731/2019 dated 15.07.2020 has no direct bearing as far as the present case is concerned. It is his contention that the authorities had found out the shortage of 25 metric tons of fertilizers worth Rs. 2,82,500/- and all the accused conspired with each other and in furtherance of such conspiracy, committed the offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 34, 201, 255 and 120B IPC with a common intention. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
5. The first petitioner (A2) was working as a senior assistant at Pudhukottai TANFED and the second petitioner (A3) was working as an 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 internal auditor at Pudhukottai Regional Office. Though they were holding additional charge in TANFED during the relevant period, they were given the important posts of receiving fertilizers from various suppliers and to dispatch the same to Primary Co-operative Credit Societies as and when required. Once supply is made, they are supposed to collect money for such sales and to monitor and audit periodically. They are also expected to remit the sale proceeds and report before the concerned officers of TANFED. According to the prosecution, they failed to do so and in connivance with A1 and with the common intention of committing fraud, all the accused including the present petitioners caused monetary loss to TANFED. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that since the petitioners were given additional charge, they cannot be held responsible for the deficit found in the stock of fertilizers. It is also his submission that as per the Stock Verification Statement of Chemical Fertilizers by one Thiru.Neelavannan, Co-operative Audit Officer, there was no deficit in the stock as on 31.03.2012. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the inspection was conducted for the period 01.04.2011 - 31.03.2012 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 and deficit of 25 metric tons fertilizers was found. However, the Stock Verification Statement of Chemical Fertilizers as on 31.03.2012 was taken up on 20.04.2012 and 21.04.2012 and this has no relevance to the present case. In fact, the occurrence took place 8 months prior to the audit report.
6. It is seen from the records that TANFED supplies various kinds of fertilizers to the farmers at subsidized rates through Regional Offices functioning at every District, from where, the fertilizers are sent to Primary Agricultural Societies. The farmers get the fertilizers by paying cash or on credit basis. The petitioners are the persons who are responsible for receiving fertilizers from various suppliers and dispatching the same to Primary Co-operative Credit Societies in a proper manner. They should also collect money and remit the same on the same day itself. In the Section 81 Enquiry Report dated 04.02.2019, the enquiry officer had clearly held that the present petitioners had not maintained the accounts properly and there was also a deficit of 25 metric tons of fertilizers and thus there was a loss to TANFED to the tune of Rs. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 2,82,500/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the enquiry officer while conducting enquiry under Section 81 of the Act had gone beyond the scope and had conducted enquiry for the period 2012-2013 also. According to him, this vitiates the entire enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. However, the fact remains that even for the period from 2011-2012, there was a deficit of fertilizers in the stock and enquiry officer had conducted proper enquiry and submitted his report on 04.02.2019. Following the said report, the second respondent had issued a proceedings dated 18.03.2019 under Section 87 of the Act seeking an explanation from the present petitioners. This was quashed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.16723, 16729 and 16731/2019 dated 15.07.2020 on the ground that as per proviso to Section 87(1) of the Act, no action can be commenced under Section 87(1) after the expiry of 7 years from the date of any act of omission referred to in the Section. Since the occurrence took place in the year 2011 and Section 87 proceedings were initiated in the year 2019, the same was quashed in W.P.(MD)Nos.16723, 16729 and 16731/2019 dated 15.07.2020. However, the present criminal case is totally different. The Deputy 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 Registrar had given a complaint before the first respondent, the Inspector of Police, CCIW-CID, Pudhukottai who in turn registered FIR in Crime No.1/2021 and after conducting thorough investigation, had laid a final report in C.C.No.10 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhukottai. The criminal proceedings are parallel to the departmental proceedings under Section 81 of the Act.
7. In the decision in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20896 to 20901/2018 dated 02.03.2022, the petitioners were given full additional charge for 3 or 4 Districts at one time and in such circumstances, the charges fastened against the persons who are in the supervisory cadre were quashed. However, the facts are different in the present case.
8. This Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct any roving enquiry to find out the actual facts. This is also because, the enquiry officer in his enquiry report had clearly held that the present petitioners had caused loss to TANFED to the tune of Rs.2,82,500/- during the relevant period and in such circumstances, I 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 do not see any reason to quash the final report in C.C.No.10/2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhukottai.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.02.2024 NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudhukottai
2.The Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W - CID, Pudhukottai, Pudhukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 R.HEMALATHA, J.
mbi Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12889 of 2021 29.02.2024 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis