Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The defacto complainant is the revision petitioner herein. The revision is filed by PW1 against the order of acquittal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

3.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

In December 2004, Karukalacherry fishermen village, Karaikal is one of the Tsunami affected area. After Tsunami, both the Central and the Union Government of Puducherry as well as some of the NGOs have come forward to give assistance to the Tsunami affected village. At the time, the accused A1 to A5, who are the Panchayatars of the village have falsely represented some persons other than the villagers, as if they are also the residents of the village and the accused have collected money and misappropriated to the tune of Rs.21,500/- http://www.judis.nic.in and when it was questioned by PW.1-Kalaiyarasan, PW.2-Viswanathan and PW.3-Muthukumar, who are belonged to Karukalacherry village, the accused, who were in the dominant position of Panchayatars, excommunicated them and thereby, they have been denied the Tsunami relief fund and hence the complaint.

4. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, it is clear that the accused were joint together and excommunicated PW.1's family and the other family of the villagers, namely, Mayilvaghanan, Velayutham and Rishy Shankar, since they have also questioned the irregularities committed by the panchayatars. The revenue witnesses PW.7, PW.8 and PW.10, who deposed to the effect that based upon the identification made by the Panchayatar, they have distributed the Tsunami relief fund to 364 persons and obtained acknowledgement and Rs.10,000/- was disbursed for each family. P.W.10-the Senior Manager of Indian Bank at Karaikal Branch also deposed that the cheques have been issued to the beneficiaries. Thus, the charges against the accused are that,

5. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.11 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, there is no iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that the persons, who are the Karukalacherry villagers and who are not belonged to Karukalacherry village and to whom all these accused facilitated to get the Tsunami relief fund. The names of the persons, who are the beneficiaries of the Tsunami relief were not mentioned either in the complaint or in the charge sheet or any of the evidence examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, from the evidence of the revenue witnesses, it is seen that A1 to A5 were the panchayatars at the relevant point of time. PW.6 and PW.7 have stated that the amount sanctioned by the government towards Tsunami relief fund was disbursed by them directly to the beneficiaries on identification by the panchayatars and no amount has been given to the panchayatars as stated by PW.1 assumes significance. Further more, on close scrutiny of the revenue witnesses PW.6 and PW.7, they have not whispered anything about the amount disbursed to the persons, other than the village people, namely, Karukalacherry village. Further, they have not mentioned any name of such persons, to whom the benefit was given as http://www.judis.nic.in stated by PW.1. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7, the independent witnesses, nothing is there to disclose any material to support the case of the prosecution as to the mis-representation in identifying the beneficiaries. PW.8-Murugesan(Tahsildar) has not deposed regarding the relief granted to any person outside the village, in view of the alleged misrepresentation said to have been made by the accused. From the revenue witnesses, namely, officials of Fisheries Department or Tsunami relief fund Special Revenue Officer have not received any complaint as to the loss to the Government. Even PW.1 has not stated the name of the persons to whom Tsunami relief was wrongfully given or wrongfully identified by the accused. Thus, this Court finds that neither the evidence of PW.1 nor the revenue witnesses PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 to disclose any offence under Section 420 IPC in support of the charge. In the absence of any details regarding to whom the Tsunami relief fund was wrongfully given as claimed by PW.1, the trial Court has taken into consideration that the evidence let in by the prosecution suffers from infirmity and does not discloses any offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly ordered acquittal and the said finding of the trial Court does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference at this revision stage.

6. The next charge relating to Section 406 IPC is that the http://www.judis.nic.in accused have misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,500/-. However, on analysing the prosecution witnesses, none of the witnesses have whispered anything regarding entrustment of any amount from Tsunami relief fund or distribution with the accused. All the revenue witnesses and the officials of the Bank have categorically deposed that they have handed over the Tsunami relief fund by way of cheque to the affected persons and hence in the absence of any positive evidence to show the entrustment of money with the accused, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the alleged offence under Section 406 IPC has not made out. Further allegation against the accused is that the accused have misappropriated Rs.21,500/- and not returned to the new office bearers of the elected panchayat. In this connection, none from the newly elected body have been examined by the prosecution to show that there was a deficit of a sum of Rs.21,500/- and the said amount was not remitted by these accused and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not let in sufficient evidence to establish entrustment and secondly, there is no sufficient evidence for misappropriation of fund and thus on this ground also, the finding of the trial Court does not warrant any interference.