Duraikannu & Ors. vs State

These batch of appeals are preferred by the accused who were held guilty in Special C.C.No.3 of 2000, on the file of the learned Special Judge",

cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengapattu vide judgment dated 29.07.2009.",

On 30.08.1994 three applications purported to be from the widows of Vanathiyan son of Santhanam, Munian son of Poogan, Gajendran son of",

Muthan of Mogulvadi village, Maduranthagam Taluk enclosing the death extract of the above said persons signed by Thiru.S.Kalaiarasu, Village",

Administrative Officer of Mogulvadi Village, Maduranthagam Taluk was received by Thiru.Deek.Ramasamy the Tahsildhar, Distress Relief",

Scheme, Maduranthagam. He processed the application and send the same to Devarajan [A1], Revenue Inspector for enquiry and report. The",

said Devarajan on receipt of the applications, recommended to sanction the Distress Relief of Rs.5,000/- to each of the applicants. Since there",

was delay in making the applications, Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar addressed a letter to the District Collector, Chennai, requesting him to",

condone the delay in preferring the application seeking Distress Relief Fund. Considering the request, the District Collector has issued proceedings",

condoning the delay. Thereafter, Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar has sanctioned the relief amount to the three appellants A5 to A7 who claim",

themselves as widows of Vanathiyan, Munniyan and Gajendaran.",

Thiru.V.Narayanan Tahsildhar succeeded Thiru.Deek Ramasamy as Tahsildhar of Maduranthagam Taluk during September 1995. Pursuant to,

the sanction order issued by the District Collector cheques were issued for Rs.5,000/- to each of the applicants, in presence of P.Murugasan,",

Village Assistant who has identified the claimants, later it as found that the claimants who received the distress relief fund are not widows of",

Vanathiyan, Munnaiyan, Gajendaran. In fact these three persons are alive and the death extract issued that they were died during July/August 1993",

is false. The fictitious entry had been made in the death register as if the above said persons were died during July/August 1993. Thiru.Duraikannu,

[A- 2] who was the Village Administrative Officer of Mogulvadi Village, during that relevant point of time had made the false entry in the death",

register with connivance of his Village Assistant showing him as the informer for the death. After applying for Distress Relief Fund, these accused",

have arranged three persons namely Selvi wife of Fancis, Thiru.Kannammal wife of Kanniappan and Thiru.Malliga wife of Sankaran to",

impersonate as widow of Vanathaiyan, Munniyan and Gajendaran to receive the Distress Relief Fund. Accordingly, these three ladies have gone to",

Bank of India, Maduranthagam having received the cheque and encashed the same. The information as found in the First Information Report",

indicates that after giving Rs.150/- to each of the ladies, the remaining money has been taken away by Duraikannu [A-2] and Murugesan [A-4]",

thus the totally Rs.15,000/- has been cheated by the accused persons. Thus, pursuant to the conspiracy A1 to A7 had cheated the Government by",

producing false death extract by creating false entry in the death register and by impersonation.,

Based on the First Information Report, the case was registered on 23.05.1996. The prosecution after conducted investigation, had laid final",

report as against appellants Thiru.Devarajan [A1] Revenue Inspector, Maduranthagam, Duraikannu [A2] Village Administrative Officer,",

Mogulvadi village, Kalaiarasu [A3] Village Administrative Officer, Mogulvadi Village, Murugasan [A4] Village Assistant Mogulvadi Village, Selvi",

@ Chittak [A5], Kannammal @ Panjali [A6] and Malliga [A7].",

While A1 to A4 are public servants A5 to A7 are private individuals. Based on the final report, the trial Court has farmed charges against A1 to",

A7 under Section 120-B r/w 468, 471 r/w 468 IPC, 419 IPC and 420 IPC. Further, A1 to A4 being public servants additional charge under",

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed.,

To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses, marked 26 Exhibits. No witness examined on the side of the defence.",

The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence has held that Vanathiyan, Munniyan, Gajendaran are alive and their wives are also alive but",

they were not the applicants seeking distress relief fund. The thumb impression found in the application of Rosemarie wife of Vanathiyan tally with,

the thumb impression of the 5th accused Selvi @ Chittak. Likewise, the thumb impression found in the application of Kannammal wife of Muniyan",

tally with the thumb impression of 6th accused Panchali wife of Kanniappan. Likewise the thumb impression found in the application of Malliga,

wife of Gajendaran tally with the thumb impression of 7th accused Malliga wife of Sankar. Thus the prosecution has proved through its witnesses,

that Vanathiyan, Munnaiyan, Gajendaran are not died as found in the entries of death register and the death extract enclosed along with the",

applications and their wives did not make any application for seeking distress relief fund. Whereas, the accused A1 to A4 had fabricated the",

records and had made false claim in the name of Dassmary, Kannammal and Malliga. To support the claim the family cards were forged.",

Therefore, the trial Court held A1 to A4 guilty of offences and had sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default 6",

months R.I for offence under Section 120-B r/w 468, to undergo 2 years R.I and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default 6 months R.I for offence under",

Section 471 r/w 468 IPC, to undergo 1 year R.I for offence under 419 IPC, to undergo 2 years R.I and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default 6 months",

R.I for offence under Section 420 IPC, to undergo 2 years R.I and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default 6 months R.I for offence under section 13(2) r/w",

13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.,

Insofar as A5 to A7, the trial court had sentenced them to undergo 1 year R.I and a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I for",

offence under Section 120-B r/w 468 of IPC. To undergo 1 year R.I and a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I for offence under,

Section 471 r/w 468 of IPC, to undergo 1 year R.I for offence under Section 419 IPC, To undergo 1 year R.I and a fine of Rs.100/- in default to",

undergo 3 months R.I for offence under Section 420 IPC.,

Aggrieved by the above said sentence the accused persons have preferred the following appeals; (i) A1 [Devarajan] has preferred the appeal,

in Crl.A.No.482 of 2009; (ii) A2 [DuraiKannu] has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.465 of 2009; (iii) A3 [Kalaiarasu] has preferred the appeal,

in Crl.A.No.468 of 2009; (iv) A4 [P.Murugasan] has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.490 of 2002; Since He died pending appeal, this appeal has",

been dismissed as abated; (v). A5 [Selvi @ Chittak] has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.495 of 2009 and A6 [Kannammal] and A7 [Maliga],

has jointly preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.516 of 2009.,

The contention of the appellant A1 Devarajan in Crl.A.No.482 of 2009 is that he was as Revenue Inspector, had followed the procedures and",

directions of the higher authority namely the Thiru.Deek Ramasamy, Tahsildhar. He has not committed any violation of the Tamil Nadu Revenue",

Subordinate Service Rules. The applications which were received by the Taluk Office being forwarded by the Tahsildhar Deek.Ramasamy to the,

Collector along with his request to condone the delay. The District Collector after applying his mind, on perusal of the records, taking note of the",

genuineness of the claim had condoned the delay and forwarded the papers to Taluk office for verification. Thiru.Kalaiarasu [A3], Village",

Administrative Officer had verified the application and submitted the records that was in turn forwarded by him to Deek.Ramasamy Talsildhar. In,

the said process the appellant as Revenue Inspector has no role in obtaining the signatures or thumb impression of the applicants directly or to,

process the application and sanction the relief fund. He has also no role even in disbursement of the same.,

While so, the finding of the Trial Court on 30.08.1994 he along with the other accused had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the",

illegal act is totally baseless. In the absence of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court ought not to have held the appellants guilty of the",

offence for the breach of trust. Regarding distribution of Distress Relief Fund. In the absence of evidence, the trial Court ought to have acquitted",

him from all the charges, since there is no evidence to show this appellant as Revenue Inspector abused his official position to do any illegal act for",

pecuniary advantage or he has created false records to use it as genuine and cheat the state by impersonation.,

The Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW.17 Thiru.Narayanan, Special Tahsidhar Distress Relief Fund whose name",

was shown one of the accused in the First Information Report. In the absence of evidence that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy to make,

pecuniary advantage the appellant has shared the alleged unlawful gain, the Trail Court ought not to have held them guilty.",

Thiru.Duraikannu [A2] who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.485 of 2009 would submit that during the alleged period of occurrence the appellant,

was not at all in-charge of the concern village in the capacity of Village Administrative Officer. His name was found in the First Information Report,

but later included in the final report for the reason best known to the prosecution. He was not at all responsible for grant of distress relief fund. The,

entire process is done at Tahsidhar and Revenue Inspector level. This appellant has not committed any criminal offence other than preparation of,

the death extract of the claimants husband based on the Death Register. While PW.17 [Narayanan], Tahsildar was at the helm of affairs during the",

relevant point of time, his name shown in First Information Report as accused, transposed as witness to prosecution whereas, in the final report,",

the name of the appellant is included as accused without any material evidence implicating him. Based on the information given by A4 [Murugasan],",

Village Administrative Officer he had entered the death of Vanathiyan, Munnaiyan, Gajendaran. He was not the Officer incharge of the Village",

during the period of application or during the period of disbursement therefore, he cannot be roped in as accused by the prosecution under",

Prevention of Corruption Act. When the prosecution has not proved through material evidence the alleged conspiracy, forgery and cheating, the",

Trial Court ought to have not convicted the appellant.,

Thiru. Kalaiarasu [A3] appellant in Crl.A.No.486 of 2009 would submit that the charge against this appellant is that he has produced death,

extract of the Gajendran son of Muthan, Muniyan son of Poogan, Vanathaiyan son of Santhanam based on the entries made in the Register by the",

Village Administrative Office Durai kannu [A2] and Murugasan [A4] cannot be the reason to hold him guilty for the alleged offences of conspiracy,",

impersonation, cheating fabrication of documents using the forged document as genuine and misuse of office as public servant to obtain unlawful",

gain by abusing his official position.,

There is no material to show that there was meeting of mind between the accused or pursuant to the meeting of mind the alleged criminal,

offence has been committed. The appellant joined the duty as Village Administrative Officer in the said village only on 01.06.1994 whereas the,

application along with death extract was forwarded before he joined the station as Village Administrative Officer so, he cannot be held liable for",

conspiracy. The death of Vanathiyan, Muniyan, Gajendran was registered on 31.08.1993, 12.08.1993 and 29.07.1993 respectively and same has",

been done by A2 [Durai Kannu]. While so, this accused who joined the station as Village Administrative Office on 01.06.1994 has erroneously",

been held guilty for alleged conspiracy and crime which has taken place much prior to his joining in the said station. The evidence of PW.17 or his,

report Ex.P.22 are unreliable, since PW.17 himself was arrayed as one of the accused in the First Information Report and departmental enquiry",

was initiated against him for misconduct. The Trial Court has not given due consideration for the evidence given by PW.14 and his report marked,

as Ex.P.20. When the appellant has not registered the death of persons who are alive and when he has not marshalled A5 to A7 before the Bank,

or Taluk Office to receive the cheque or to encash the same holding him guilty for offence of cheating, forgery, impersonation and conspiracy is",

unjust and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice.,

As far as the private individuals namely Selvi @ Chittak [A5] appellants in Crl.A.No.495 of 2009 is concerned it is submitted that Selvi first,

husband died due to Snake Bite and the distress relief scheme is for widows whose husband died by Snake Bite. She belongs to Irula Community,

which is very downtrodden community. She has made a genuine claim and sought compensation under the distress relief scheme which she is fully,

eligible. Being illiterate and ignorant, she is not aware of the procedures or capable of filing up the application form. This does not mean that she",

has connived with the other accused persons who are educated and wordily wise people, employed by the state to maintain records of death and",

identify eligible candidates for disbursement of social welfare schemes of the Government. She has innocently affixed the thumb impression,

believing the words of the Officials. The Trial Court has miserably failed to note that her first husband died due to Snake Bite, so she cannot be",

roped in for the alleged offence under Section 420-B, 468, 471 or any other offence as projected by the prosecution. The remarriage of the",

appellant after the death of her first husband will no way disentitled her from claiming the distress relief scheme. Just because has re-married after,

the demise of the first husband, it cannot be a reason to hold her guilty of impersonation, cheating and breach of trust.",

The other two private individuals namely Kannammal @ Panjali [A6] and Maliga [A7] would submit that these appellants who were illiterate,",

uneducated hailing from downtrodden community has been misused by educated, affluent and well placed accused namely A1 to A4 to cheat the",

State Government. By creating false records and siphoning the funds allotted for welfare scheme like distress relief fund which is meant for poor,

widow of Irula Community who spouse die by of snake bite. Believing the words of the Officials they accompanied them to the Bank and Taluk,

Office affixed the thumb impression as dictated by them with a fond hope and belief that government is going to give some monetary support.,

Criminal Appeal No.465 of 2009 filed by,Duraikannur [A2] is Dismissed

Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2009 filed by,Devarajan [A1] is Dismissed

Criminal Appeal No.486 of 2009 filed by,Kalaiarasu [A3] is Dismissed

Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2009 filed by,Selvi @ Chittak[A5] is Allowed

,

,

Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2009 filed by,Kannammal @ Panchali [A6] & Malliga [A7] are Allowed