K. Malaisamy Vs. State through Inspector of Police CCIW (CID), Theni - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1190598
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnJun-10-2016
Case NumberC.R.L.RC(MD) No. 134 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 2111 of 2016
JudgeThe Honourable Dr. Justice P. Devadass
AppellantK. Malaisamy
RespondentState through Inspector of Police CCIW (CID), Theni
Excerpt:
(prayer: criminal revision petition is filed, under section 397 r/w 401 cr.p.c., to call for the records relation to the order, dated 12.01.2016, passed by the learned judicial magistrate no.iii, (cciw), madurai, in cr.m.p.no.4738 of 2014 in c.c.no.9 of 2014 and set aside the same.) 1. since his discharge petition in cr.m.p.no.4738 of 2014 in c.c.no.9 of 2014 has been dismissed by the learned judicial magistrate no.iii, madurai, a2 has directed this revision. 2. in theni district, in jeyamangalam, there is 'jeyamangalam primary agricultural co-operative credit society'. it gives jewel loans. a1 served as its appraiser, while a2 / revision petitioner was its secretary. 3. the investigation officer, after recording statement of witnesses under section 161 cr.p.c., and seizure of large number of documents, filed the final report, for offences under sections 403, 408, 420, 477-a and 120-b i.p.c. r/w 34 and 109 i.p.c. 4. it is alleged that a1, while appraising pledged jewel, used to cut a portion of it and kept the balance jewels alone in the locker and misappropriated the secreted portion of jewel. in this way, he is alleged to have misappropriated 155.400 grams of gold and it was valued at rs.4,50,660/-. 5. it is alleged that had a2 as secretary checked them then and there and kept the jewels in the locker properly, a1 would not have had the opportunity to misappropriate the jewels, a2 has conspired together with a2, acted in common intention and abetted a1 to commit the offence. 6. a person can be prosecuted based on incriminating materials disclosing commission of certain offences. taking the materials at their face value, unrebutted, if they warrant a conviction, then it would be a case for charge, otherwise, it would be a case for discharge. to put it in other words, if there is prima facie case or there is ground to proceed further, a2 can be charged, otherwise not. 7. thus, the allegation as against the revision petitioner is that he had failed to exercise proper supervision, he performed his duties negligently, he was careless and he has committed administrative lapses. this may be a ground for taking disciplinary action as against a2 as per his service rules, but not criminal action under criminal law. in the facts and circumstances, there is no ground to proceed further as against a2 for the offence alleged as against him. thus, the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is unsustainable. 8. in view of the foregoings, this criminal revision is allowed. the revision petitioner / a2 is discharged from c.c.no.9 of 2014, on the file of the learned judicial magistrate no.iii, madurai. consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.
Judgment:

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relation to the order, dated 12.01.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, (CCIW), Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.4738 of 2014 in C.C.No.9 of 2014 and set aside the same.)

1. Since his discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.4738 of 2014 in C.C.No.9 of 2014 has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, A2 has directed this revision.

2. In Theni District, in Jeyamangalam, there is 'Jeyamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society'. It gives jewel loans. A1 served as its Appraiser, while A2 / revision petitioner was its Secretary.

3. The Investigation Officer, after recording statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and seizure of large number of documents, filed the Final Report, for offences under Sections 403, 408, 420, 477-A and 120-B I.P.C. r/w 34 and 109 I.P.C.

4. It is alleged that A1, while appraising pledged jewel, used to cut a portion of it and kept the balance jewels alone in the locker and misappropriated the secreted portion of jewel. In this way, he is alleged to have misappropriated 155.400 grams of gold and it was valued at Rs.4,50,660/-.

5. It is alleged that had A2 as Secretary checked them then and there and kept the jewels in the locker properly, A1 would not have had the opportunity to misappropriate the jewels, A2 has conspired together with A2, acted in common intention and abetted A1 to commit the offence.

6. A person can be prosecuted based on incriminating materials disclosing commission of certain offences. Taking the materials at their face value, unrebutted, if they warrant a conviction, then it would be a case for charge, otherwise, it would be a case for discharge. To put it in other words, if there is prima facie case or there is ground to proceed further, A2 can be charged, otherwise not.

7. Thus, the allegation as against the revision petitioner is that he had failed to exercise proper supervision, he performed his duties negligently, he was careless and he has committed administrative lapses. This may be a ground for taking disciplinary action as against A2 as per his Service Rules, but not criminal action under criminal law. In the facts and circumstances, there is no ground to proceed further as against A2 for the offence alleged as against him. Thus, the impugned Order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable.

8. In view of the foregoings, this criminal revision is allowed. The revision petitioner / A2 is discharged from C.C.No.9 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.