Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in K.S.Sathish Kumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 2 March, 2021Matching Fragments
(d) of PC Act. The petitioner is also an accused in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2019 and facing trial along with 7 other accused for offence under Sections 120B read with 167, 477A, 420, 409 IPC read with 13(2), 13 (1) (C) and
(d) of PC Act and 120 of IPC read with 167, 477A, 420, 409 read with 109 IPC and 109 read with 13(2) read with 13(1) (C) and (d) of PC Act. The allegation in both the charge sheets is that the accused A1 to A3 hatched criminal conspiracy along with A4 to A8, private individuals to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.1938 of 2021 misappropriate public money by entertaining the bogus claim applications from the SC/ST students as if, they have been studying in the institutions (non-existing and existing) and with the connivance of private individuals A4 to A8, committed misappropriation of the public money by framing incorrect documents, forgery and falsification of accounts and used the forged documents as genuine and further committed misappropriation of the Government funds granted to the SC/ST students as Post Metric Scholarship for the period from the year 2010 to 2011 and 2011 to 2012 at Salem.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose stating that in this case the petitioner along with 7 other accused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.1938 of 2021 in C.C.No.4 of 2019 is tried for having committed misappropriation of public money by framing incorrect documents and forgery and falsification of accounts and using the forged document as if a genuine one. The period of offence in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2019 is committed during the year 2010 to 2011 and as far as Spl.C.C.No 5 of 2019 is concerned, the same offences were committed during the year 2011 to 2012, beyond the period of 12 months. The petitioner is also charged for offence under Sections 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act committed during the period and obviously, as per Proviso to Section 212 Cr.P.C and Proviso to Section 23 of PC Act, separate trials have to be conducted and thereby the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition seeking for joint trial. He would submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and would press for dismissal of the revision.