Madras High Court
K.Pitchai Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 July, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12/04/2022
Pronounced on : 11/07/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
K.Pitchai Maideen : Petitioner/A2
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
Vigilance Anti Corruption Wing,
Thanjavur,
(Crime No.9 of 2015) : R1/Complainant
2.Ramasamy : R2/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Special SC
No.22 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-
cum-Special Judge trial for Prevention of Corruption Act,
Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Venkatesan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.Karuppasamy
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in Special SC No.22 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge trial for Prevention of Corruption Act, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
A1 namely Vanaroja was working as Panchayat President of North Pathirangkottai Village from 25/10/2011 to 24/10/2016. A2 was working as 'Block Development Officer' from 26/04/2013 to 09/07/2014. A3 is the Deputy Block Development Officer working from 14/04/2013 to 30/06/2014. All the accused were public officers as defined under section 2(c)(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A4 to A7 were private persons. During 2013-2014 in the Pathirangkottai North Panchayat, A1 in collusion with the other accused persons, created false documents and falsify the accounts and caused loss to the tune of Rs.9,88,719/- in respect of the maintenance and public street light, maintenance of overhead tank, maintenance of water pipe line and thereby misappropriated the said amount. So, based 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020 upon the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No. 9 of 2015 for the offences under sections 120(B), 409, 465, 468 , 471, 477(A) IPC and section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 109 IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed and it was taken cognizance in Special SC No.22 of 2019 by the trial court.
3.Seeking quashment of the final report, this petitioner, who is arrayed as A2 has filed this petition.
4.Heard both sides.
5.It is not in dispute that this petitioner was working as Block Development Officer from 26/06/2013 till 09/07/2014 in the Pathirangkottai Village North Panchayat Union office. Now the allegation of the prosecution is that during the relevant period only, the above said misappropriation of the accounts took place on the basis of the forged documents. The allegation against the petitioner/A2 is that this petitioner also actively in connivance with the other accused person namely A4, who is the husband of A1, created false records for misappropriation of money.
3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
6.A5 and A6 did not do any work for the above said Panchayat. But however, A4 issued cheques to them. They encashed it and misappropriated. A7 is the owner of Prakash Electrical Shop, from whom A4 received false vouchers and receipts as if they purchased the articles. Similarly, A7 has also issued cheque, without proper work. So this is the allegation that has been made against the accused persons.
7.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon various circumstances, would submit that the petitioner was a person, who found out the irregularity made and took proper communication to rectify the same. He would rely upon the memo, that was issued by petitioner, on 05/07/2013 and on 02/12/2013 to the Panchayat Secretary namely K.Saravanan for his non production of the relevant records.
8.Reading of this memo shows that on 05/07/2013, he issued a memo to several Village Panchayat Secretaries to produce Form-30 for inspection for the period April, May, June, July and August. Similarly, the Panchayat Presidents were also required to produce the relevant documents. It is also made clear that if the records are not submitted within a time, then steps will be taken to freeze the 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020 Panchayat accounts. It was also reminded by a letter, dated 02/12/2013. Finally on 28/02/2014, he made inspection of the relevant documents. Finding some defects, he prepared the inspection report directing the officials and the Panchayat President to rectify the defects.
9.Reading of the inspection report shows that most of the documents relating to the relevant time, either not produced or submitted for inspection or wwre not at all maintained. But he made a spot inspection to find out the condition of the drinking water installation as well as maintenance of street lights. In the annexure, we find that by making inspection of the cash book, Bank account, a sum of Rs.3,46,835/- was found incurred without proper vouchers. Similarly, for maintaining the drinking water installation, Rs.7,69,943/- has been spent and for street light maintenance, Rs.6,59,407/- has been spent, which was the above permitted limit. So a show cause notice was issued, on 06/03/2011 by this petitioner seeking explanation for the charges. The Panchayat President was held responsible and charge memo was issued. On 16/06/2014, this petitioner sent a communication to the District Collector, Thanjavur, with regard to the above said issue. In the reply submitted by the Village Panchayat President, 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020 She made some allegations against the Vice President of the above siad Panchayat. Because of the trouble, that has been made by the members as well as the Vice President and because of the difference of opinion between the President and the above said said persons, from 28/08/2014, the Panchayat President did not discharge any functions. By letter, dated 25/06/2014, this petitioner sent a communication to the Indian Bank, Ooranipuram to freeze the account of the Panchayat, because of the non-functioning of the Panchayat because of the dispute between the President and the Vice President.
10.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner took the court through the above said documents for the purpose of argument that this petitioner has discharged his duties in a dutiful and proper manner. The Panchayat Election and Parliamentary Election intervened after the above said issue of charge memo etc., and that was the reason for him to discontinue the further process. But, he sent a detailed communication to the District Collector and the District Collector ought to have taken further steps in this regard.
6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
11.It is further contended that this factual situation shows that he was not at all involved in the misappropriation of money. In short, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action on the part of this petitioner shows that absolutely there was no meeting of mind between himself and A1, A4 to A7 to forge the document and misappropriated the money. So according to him, these are the official documents which can be relied upon by this court for deciding the issue.
12.No doubt these are official documents, that can be relied upon by this court for the purpose of deciding the issue. So when we take this document into account, it is seen that this petitioner has discharged his duty sincerely, but of course, later he failed to continue the process.
13.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this inaction on the part of the petitioner shows that he has also involved in the above said misappropriation. But in the final report, that has been filed by the first respondent, the allegation made against this petitioner is that as per G.O.(Ms).No.238 of Rural Development (E.V) Department, dated 25/07/1997, Audit 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020 Inspection was not properly undertaken and no inspection report was also prepared and no action was also undertaken regarding the non-maintenance of the records pertaining to the Village Panchayat funds and the further allegation is that they failed to take proper action for suspending or closing the account.
14.But these allegations in the final report goes quite contrary to the documents, which are produced by the petitioner. It is shown that as mentioned above, this petitioner made proper inspection, not only the records, but also the spot inspection, issued a memo to A1 to produce the relevant documents and records showing the correct fund management and even also noted the excess of the amount that alleged to have been spent by the Panchayat President over the above said permitted limit and also frazeed all the accounts of the Panchayat. So this shows that without proper application of mind and relevant document, final report has been filed, simply making bald allegation against this petitioner.
15.It is also seen that because of the dispute between the Vice President and the President, by order of the District Collector, the Panchayat Administration was taken 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020 over by the Block Development Officer from 20/06/2014. So this also shows that A1 is responsible for the above said entire financial mismanagement. proper action was taken by the District Collector.
16.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the initial stage of the argument, would submit that as per the above said G.O, that has been passed by the Government with regard to the Panchayat Administration, only the Deputy Block Development Officer is responsible. But when this argument was advanced, this court was of the view that the nomenclature of the officer is not the relevant factor here, because this petitioner was working as Block development Officer during the relevant time and even as per his known case, he took inspection and other process. So this point is not available to the petitioner. On hearing the views of this court, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is not pressing the above said ground. So, in view of the discussion above, the criminal proceedings that has been initiated against this petitioner is a clear abuse of process of court and law. 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
17.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
18.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The impugned Special SC No.22 of 2019 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge trial for Prevention of Corruption Act, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam is hereby quashed against this petitioner.
11.07.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No er Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Anti-Corruption Wing, Thanjavur.
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.726 of 2020 G.ILANGOVAN,J., er Crl.O.P.(MD)No.726 of 2020 11/07/2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis