Madras High Court
P.K.Kuppusamy vs / on 15 September, 2021
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A.No.506 of 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:11.04.2023 Pronounced on:18.05.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.506 of 2021
P.K.Kuppusamy .. Appellant/3rd Accused
/versus/
The State Rep.by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch CID,
Vellore Range. .. Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records and set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, made in Special Case
No.2/2004 dated 15.09.2021.
For Appellant :Mr.B.Jawahar
For Respondent :Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate(crl.side)
------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/24
Crl.A.No.506 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The genesis of these appeals stems from the complaint of Mr.Lawrence Alexander, Joint Director of Agriculture Department, Thiruvannamalai, to the Superintendent of Police, alleging that during the course of audit of the accounts in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar, misappropriation of the Government money to a tune of Rs.64,96,291.00/- by forging the contingent bills present to the Sub Treasury, Cheyyar, between 1985 to 1990 noticed.
2. During that period, at different points of time, V.J.Sridharan (A1) and J.Mani serving as the Assistants in the Assistant Director Office, were in charge of preparation and submission of the contingent bills. M.Muthuraj, C.Venkatesan, R.Ponnan and M.Narshiman were the Assistant Directors responsible for signing the bills as Drawing Officers. Annexing a list consisting of details about bills between 03/10/1985 to 03/07/1990, the complaint disclosed the modus operandi of misappropriation by the Assistants and Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) at Cheyyar, manipulating the bills by forging and presented it as genuine before the office of the Treasury and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 encashed the money in connivance with the Token Clerk, Assistant and Assistant Treasury Officer.
3. The disclosure of the crime spanning to a period of about 6 years, resulted in registering of 6 FIR’s in Crime Nos:652 to 657 of 1991 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station. On completion of investigation, 6 separate Final Reports were filed getting sanction to prosecute the accused persons, who were public servants and in service.
4. The modus operandi in all the cases is similar. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons to misappropriate the Government money, the Assistant V.J.Sridharan entrusted with the responsibility of preparing and submission of the contingent bills in the Treasury for encashment, used to enter the actual amount in the office copy, but inflate the amount in the fair copy of the bill presented to the Treasury for encashment. With the connivance of the Token Clerk, Assistant and the Assistant Treasury Officer those forged bills will be passed and encashed through State Bank of India, Cheyyar. Corresponding corrections will be made in the relevant column of MTC-70 register showing the inflated amount. Later, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 the corrections will be erased. Thus, the office copies of the bills will show the correct amount, whereas the fair copies of the bills will be for the inflated amount and from the bank, the inflated amount will be withdrawn by V.J.Sridharan, Assistant in the office of the Assistant Director of Agricultural (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar in whose name the pass order is issued by the Assistant Treasury Officer. .
5. The below six Final Reports were taken cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai and assigned
1.Special Case No.1/2004 ( in crime No: 652/1991)
2.Special Case No.2/2004 ( in crime No: 653/1991)
3. Special Case No:3/ 2004 ( in crime No 657/1991) 4 Special Case No.2/2006 ( in crime No: 655/1991)
5.Special Case No.3/2006 ( in crime No:656/1991)
6.Special Case No.1/2006 (in crime No:654/1991)
6. Special case No.2/2004 (Crime No.653 of 1991), which is the subject matter of this appeal relates to the period from 21.08.1986 to 17.08.1987. The following 9 persons were charged for conspiracy, forgery of valuable securities, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 falsification of accounts, using forged documents as genuine, misappropriation of Rs.7,66,000/- and misconduct to obtain pecuniary gain..
(1)V.J.Sridharan (A-1), Assistant at the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar, from 27/02/1985 to 23/04/1990 and 10/05/1990 to 27/10/1991.
(2)M.Muthuraj (A-2), Assistant, Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) at Cheyyar, from 24/07/1986 to 01/04/1990.
(3)P.K.Kuppusamy (A-3), Assistant in Sub-Treasury, Cheyyar, from 01/04/1985 to 18/02/1988 and from 07/03/1989 to 15/10/1992.
(4)G.Selvaraj (A-4), Cashier, Sub-Treasury, Cheyyar, from 19/06/1986 to 10/01/1991.
(5)S.Loorthusami (A-5), Sub Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Cheyyar from 12.02.1987 to 06.06.1989.
(6)M.Narashimman (A-6), Sub Treasury Officer at the office of Sub Treasury, Cheyyar (in-charge) from 29.12.1987, 06.10.1987, 26.12.1988, 29.12.1988, 31.10.1989, 13.11.1989, 28.11.1989, 25.08.1988, 15.10.1988, 28.12.1988, 30.01.1989, 01.02.1989, 18.11.1989.
(7)E.C.Gopal (A-7), Assistant, Sub Treasury, Cheyyar, from 19.02.1988 to 07.03.1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 (8)S.P.Ramanathan (A-8), Sub Treasury Officer, from 07.06.1989 to 13.07.1990.
(9)R.Jayaraman (deceased) (A-9), Sub-Treasury Officer from 01.10.1985 to 12.02.1987.
7. The charges against the accused are as below:-
A1 and A2: For the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the old Prevention of Corruption Act.
A3 to A9: For the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8. Pending trial, A-1 [V.J.Sridharan], A-2 [M.Muthuraj], A-5 [S.Loorthusami], A-7 [E.C.Gopal], A-8 [S.P.Ramathan] and A-9 [R.Jayaraman] died. The charges against them got abated.
9. The prosecution, to prove the charges against the accused examined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 50 witnesses and marked 577 exhibits. After considering the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant and acquitted the accused Selvaraj (A-4) and A-6 Narasimman from all the charges. The judgement of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is as below:-
Name and rank Conviction imposed on the Sentence imposed by the trial Court of the accused accused under Section by the on the accused trial Court P.K.Kuppusamy Section 120(B)IPC Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (A3) year.
Section 409 IPC Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1
year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 3 months SI.
Section 467 IPC Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1
year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 3 months SI.
Section 468 IPC Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1
year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 3 months SI.
Section 471 IPC Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1
year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 3 months SI.
Section 477-A IPC Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1
year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
undergo 3 months SI.
Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 Prevention of Corruption year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to Act,1988 undergo 3 months SI.
The period of sentence ordered to run concurrently, since the accused was also found guilty in Spl.C.Nos.1/2004, 3/2004, 1/2006, 2/2006 and 3/2006. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently along with sentence imposed in those https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 cases also. The period of imprisonment already undergone was ordered to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
10. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, P.K.Kuppusamy (A3) filed this appeal.
11. The case of the prosecution is that V.J.Sridharan (A1) deceased, serving as Assistant, in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar, along with M.Muthuraj (A2) deceased, serving as Assistant, Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar both responsible for preparation and presenting the bills to the Sub Treasury for encashment through the State Bank of India, Cheyyar, in collusion with A-3 [P.K.Kuppusamy], the appellant in this appeal and G.Selvaraj (A-4), S.Loorthusami (A-5), M.Narasimman (A-6), E.C.Gopal (A7), S.P.Ramanathan(A-8) and R.Jayaraman (A-9) entered into a criminal conspiracy between 21.08.1986 to 17.08.1987 to do the illegal act of committing forgery of valuable securities, falsification of accounts, using forged documents as genuine, forgery for the purpose of cheating misappropriating the fund of the Government of Tamil Nadu, by preparing untrue bills by putting actual amounts in the office copy of the bills, but https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 manipulated the fair copy by prefixing number to boost up the value of the bills and get the bills passed for payment. The accused at the Sub Treasury knowing well that the bills are forged and not genuine in pursuant to the conspiracy had passed the said bills, without verifying the entries of amounts, allotted and spent in the relevant head of account and tokens were issued in the Sub Treasury, without scrutinizing relevant column in MTC-70 and other records and in some cases even without getting signature of the Drawing Officer in MTC-70, the bills in excess to the tune of Rs.7,66,000/- passed and misappropriated.
12. The appellant/A3, who was working as Assistant/Accountant in Sub Treasury, Cheyyar, cleared the following forged bills which were marked as Ex.P494 to Ex.P562 and Ex.P570 to Ex.P577 between 21.08.1986 to 17.08.1987.
13. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on the following grounds:-
The trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC, without any iota of evidence against this appellant to attract these offences, while the case of the prosecution https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 is that the forgery and falsification was done by A1 and A2 and pursuant to the conspiracy, the forged bills were passed by the Treasury, no allegation or evidence against this appellant regarding forgery or falsification placed before the Court. Even for the alleged conspiracy no evidence let in by the prosecution. While so, the passing of bills is the responsibility of the Sub Treasury Officer and not the appellant, who is working as an Assistant. If at all there is any lapse in scrutinising the bills properly and omission to note the erasures and corrections, it could at the most attract departmental action for dereliction of duty and not criminal action for the offences like, forgery and falsification of account and using the forged document as genuine. All these offences alleged to have been committed by A1 and A2, who died pending trial and who are the authors of the alleged forged documents. At the Treasury, the role of this appellant (A3) is very limited. Further, inspite of inordinate delay in completing the investigation, the prosecution has not placed all the registers related to passing of bills and the fair copies of the bills. Had the prosecution produced those documents, it could have disclosed the fact that all the alleged manipulation of documents had been done only by A1 and A2 without any knowledge of the officials of the Treasury. MTC-100 register maintained by the Treasury shows the boosted amount. Whereas, the entry found in the MTC-70 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 at the time of presentation with boosted amount, later been erased and tick mark is affixed to camouflage the error. This shows that while presenting the bills with boosted value to the Treasury, the records were manipulated uniformly. After encashment, at the agriculture office, the fabrication has been reversed. There is no role placed by the appellant herein in dealing with those disputed documents. Further, he submitted that the delay in lodging the First Information Report, reporting misappropriation of the year 1985-1989 in the year 1991 and further delay of 15 years to complete the investigation has highly prejudiced the accused to put forth his defence. Therefore. the judgement of conviction against this appellant is liable to be set aside.
14. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submitted that continuous and sustained misappropriation of the government fund by manipulating the contingent bills of the Assistant Director, Agriculture, (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar, since 1985 been going on in connivance with the Sub Treasury Officials. This came to light during the Audit inspection conducted in the month of August and September 1991. Thereafter, the complaint by the Joint Director, Agriculture, (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar, was given and six cases were registered in Crime No.652 to 657 of 1991. The investigation was transferred to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 CB,CID. On completion of investigation, final Reports were filed on 24.12.2002, which was taken cognizance by the trial Court on 05.03.2004. The forged bills though emanated from the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Cheyyar, those bills were supposed to be scrutinised and passed, after verifying the genuineness. They mechanically passing the bills without noting the manipulation, corrections and fabrication in the documents for extraneous reasons and for continuous long period of years. The accused cannot escape from the prosecution by pleading that he is innocent at the most it is only a dereliction of duty. In fact it is a serious misconduct causing pecuniary loss to the State. Particularly, the Treasury Officials, who received the bills to obtain cash, has to verify the entries made in the relevant columns of MTC-70 and other records. In the relevant column, the Drawing Officer has to affix his signature and in case of any omission, the bills ought not to have been passed. Further, MTC-70 register has to be accompanied with the bills presented. While scrutinising MTC-70 register, a consistent erasures and correction in the previous entry ought to have drawn the attention of any prudent person. In this case, in MTC 70, the column meant for amount been continuously corrected and this has not been questioned before passing the bills. Further more, the reconciliation of the account is the joint responsibility of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 Department as well as the Treasury. The lapse of reconciling the weekly account by the department is because of the connivance of the Treasury officials and therefore, that cannot be a reason to exonerate the appellant, who was serving as Assistant and cleared the forged bills for passing. Only with active assistant of the appellant, A1 and A2 were able to misappropriate the Government money and make unlawful pecuniary advantage. Therefore, he is liable to be punished under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 50 witnesses and marked 577 exhibits. PW-5 [Sulochana] had deposed about the procedure and how by passing the forged bills. These appellant has aided A1 and A2 to obtain pecuniary advantage and misappropriate the government fund.
15. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) referring the provision of Tamil Nadu Treasury Code dealing with passing of bills, which is also extraneously extracted by the trial Court in its judgement, submitted that the grave omission to follow the Treasury Code scrupulously and knowingly passing the forged bills, the conviction of the appellant has to be upheld. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021
16. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the records.
17. The modus operandi of the accused persons to misappropriate the government money by forging the contingent bills is plain and simple. Had the officials both at the Agriculture Department as well as the Treasury Department had scrupulously followed the Rules and Code. This massive misappropriation about to the tune of Rs.64,00,000/- spending for the period of five years could have been averted. The gross failure on the part of the officials both in the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Cheyyar as well as the officials in Sub Treasury, Cheyyar has resulted in this fraud. The main perpetrator of the crime namely, Sridharan, had met her maker before the trial completed.
18. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) had justified the enormous delay in completing the investigation and the said justification also for the delay in filing the final report has been accepted by the trial Court. The evidence of PW-5 [Sulochana] discloses the fact that the Assistant/Accountant in the Sub Treasury Office has to scrutinise the bills, presented and after being https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 satisfied that the entries in the bills are corrected, token to be given and the vouchers after being passed should be cancelled. Those documents should be placed before the Sub Treasury Officer, who will pass the bill. In this case, the disputed bills presented by A1 [Sridharan] (deceased). In this case, in Ex.P518 dated 01.12.86, the bill is only for Rs.417.50 but in it number '9' prefixed and inflated to Rs.9,417.50. Similarly, in the bill for Rs.145/-, dated 07.02.1987, '8' was added and altered to Rs.8,145/-. In the same way, under Ex.P562, the bill for Rs.996/- altered into Rs.8,996/- by adding '8'. Had the bills meticulously scrutinised by A3 [Assistant], the fraud could have been averted. Even if he was not able to scan the manipulation in the bills, the MTC-70 register, which is accompanied with the bills, could have exposed the corrections. More so, when the Drawing Officer has not signed in the MTC-70 bills before presenting to the Treasury, the bills ought not have been passed.
19. In the case, certain bills were passed even without Drawing Officer signature in the MTC-70 register. The corrections and the erasures which are seen in the naked eyes should have been noticed, when the MTC-70 register presented subsequently. The appellant has failed to exercise even a minimum amount of diligence, if it is one or two occasions the omission and negligence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 could have been condoned, but continuous negligence leads to presumption that it is the wanton omission to facilitate A1 and A2 to get pecuniary advantage. At this juncture, it is necessary to reiterate and extract the relevant portion in the Tamil Nadu Treasury Code, Volume-I, page number 331, “It is mentioned as “2(b):- Whenever a drawing officer signs a fully-vouched contingent bill for presentation at the treasury for payment or a detailed contingent bill for submission to controlling authority he should at the same time cancel all the sub-vouchers which relate to the bill but are not attached to it and are retained for record in his office. He should endorse the word “cancelled” across each such sub-voucher in red ink or by a rubber stamp and initial it with the date. He should certify on the bill that all the sub- vouchers relating to it other than those attached to it have been so cancelled that they cannot be used again. When the amount of a sub-voucher exceeds the permanent advance it should be cancelled in the manner described above as soon as the payment has been made and entering in the contingent register”.
Tamil Nadu Treasury Code Volume-I T.R.-16- S.R.2(c):- Every bill or voucher shall be filling in ink type- writer processed in Bradma machines and signed in ink. The total amount claimed shall so far as the whole rupees are concerned be written words as in figures. The amount of the paise may be written in figures after the words stating the numbers of rupees e.g., “Rupees Twenty Five 30” If there are no paise the word “only” shall be written after the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 number of whole rupees e.g., “Rupees Twenty Six only”. In either case grate care shall be taken to leave no space that could be used for making an interpolation.
9.14 The spaces left blank either in the money column or in the column for particulars of the bill should invariably be covered by oblique lines. A note to the effect that the amount of the bill is below a specified amount expressed in whole rupees should invariably be recorded in the body of the bill in red ink. The amount so specified should be sum slightly in excess of the total amount of the bill.
2(d):- No bill or voucher containing any erasure shall be presented at the treasury. Every correction or alteration in the total of a bill shall be separately attested by the full signature of the person who sign the receipt. Every correction or alteration in the payment order shall be similarly attested by the signing officer, it is drawn on the bank and in other cases, by the Treasury or Sub-Treasury Officer, who signs it.”
20. Ex.P1 series, which is MTC-103 with boosted figure does not co-relate with MTC form-58 vouchers. This clearly proves the fact that additional number had been prefixed to the original bill amount. The Tamil Nadu Treasury Code mandates that no bill or voucher containing any erasure shall be presented at the Treasury. Every correction or alteration in the total of a bill shall be separately attested by the full signature of the person, who sign the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 receipt. Every correction or alteration in the payment order shall be similarly attested by the signing officer, it is drawn on the bank and in other cases, by the Treasury or Sub-Treasury Officer, who signs it. Whereas in this case, erasures and corrections found in the bills and vouchers, but not been attested as mandated by the Code. This wilful omission per se sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of misconduct.
21. In violation of the Code, the appellant has in connivance with co conspirators facilitated the bills to be passed. Therefore, though there is no direct evidence to prove the conspiracy, the fact that his misconduct has led to misappropriation of the government fund by A1 and A2. He had facilitated A1 and A2 to get pecuniary advantage by illegal means. The guilt is established and this is an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is proved by the prosecution.
22. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120-B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is difficult in most of the cases to establish conspiracy by direct evidence, since the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 However, the circumstantial evidence will bring forth the elements of the criminal conspiracy, such as, a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object and an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement. It is well settled principle that for an offence punishable under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In Devender Pal Singh V. State of NCT of Delhi reported in [2002 SCC (Cri.) 978], the Hon'ble Supreme Court,explained the expression 'conspiracy' as below:-
50. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)[(1988) 3 SCC 609 : this Court observed : (SCC pp. 732-33, para 275) “275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved.
Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborators would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or services to an unlawful use.” (See :State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 )
23. In this judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained how the ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy could be established. When the offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborators would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or services to an unlawful use.
24. In the case in hand, the chain of actions emanating from the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Cheyyar had culminated by encashment of the forged bills and withdrawing the money from the State Bank of India, Cheyyar. The Assistant who is the appellant herein has cleared the bills for payment.
25. As far as P.K.Kuppusamy, Assistant, who is supposed to scrutinise the bills and entries in the MTC-70 register, with that of the entries found in MTC-103 had miserably failed to scrutinise diligently. The omission to scrutinise diligently cannot be believed as an innocent omission, since the said omission been perpetually done for more than five years. A mere verification of the earlier entries in the MTC-70 register, which has been manipulated consistently could have prevented the misappropriation. The chain of actions indicates that there had been an agreement between the accused and pursuant to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 the said agreement, forged bills been cleared for encashment. The cashier payment scroll register and the entries in MTC-70 register and MTC form 58 does not tally and for six years in more than 230 bills, the correction and misappropriation has been going on. it is unbelievable that without the knowledge and connivance of this appellant, forged bills were cleared innocently. Therefore, the offence placed by the accused clearly establishes the necessary ingredient to attract the offence under Section 120-B of IPC. Hence, the appellant conviction for conspiracy and for misconduct to obtain pecuniary advantage is proved. However, there is no evidence to show that the forgery and falsification of records is done by these accused and therefore, their conviction for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC is set aside, since the offences under these Sections is done by the deceased accused Sridharan (A1) and Muthuraj (A2) and these appellant have joined in the crime in between to pass those forged documents, pursuant to the conspiracy and thereby enabling the others to get the pecuniary advantage illegally.
26. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 Whereas the appellant held guilty for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for these offences is confirmed. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused ordered to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Further, the sentence ordered to run concurrently along with sentence passed in connected Spl.C.No.1/2004, 3/2004, 1/2006, 2/2006 and 3/2006. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.
18.05.2023 Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order ari To:
1.The Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Vellore Range.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/24 Crl.A.No.506 of 2021 ari delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.Nos.506 of 2021 18.05.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/24