M. Govindan vs The State

K.B.K. Vasuki, J.—The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. 1/2005 and the appellant in C.A. No. 218/2006. The present criminal

revision is filed against his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and as confirmed by the lower appellate court. The petitioner herein, in

his capacity as Secretary of Malaiyampattu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, was charged for the offences under Sections 408, 465, 471

and 477A IPC for certain misconduct allegedly committed between 1.7.1989 to 12.10.1990.

The criminal law is set in motion on the basis of Ex. P1 complaint, which is based on Section 81 Enquiry report of PW 2-Enquiry officer. The

prosecution, in order to establish the prosecution case, examined PW 1 to PW 4 witnesses and produced Exs. P1 to P76 documents. DW 1 was

examined and Exs. D1 to D4 documents were marked on the defence side.

The trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced before the same, accepted the prosecution case and found the accused guilty of the

offences under sections 408 and 477A IPC alone and convicted and sentenced him for the charges proved against him. Aggrieved against the

same, the accused preferred C.A. No. 218/2006. The lower appellate court on the basis of same set of evidence, agreed with the finding of the

trial court and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this Court.

Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.

The only point on the basis of which, the judgment of conviction and sentence sought to be set aside herein is that Ex. P2 Enquiry Officer report

which is the basis for Ex. P1 complaint as per which the criminal law is set in motion against the accused, is time barred and the same vitiates the

entire proceedings and the finding of conviction and sentence, which are the outcome of such proceedings, is legally not maintainable. It is

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the same

ought to have been submitted either within three months or within the extended time by the authority concerned, and such extended period shall not

exceed six months in the aggregate.

Whereas, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry was commenced on 15.12.1999 and the period for completion

of enquiry was extended twice upto 24.9.2000 which is beyond 9 months and the report was filed only on 16.03.2001 which is even beyond

extended period of nine months, as such, the complaint itself is barred by limitation, as per Section 81(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative

Societies Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, cited two authorities of the learned brother and sister judges of this court

reported in Indian Kanoon- http://indiankanoon.org/doc/989475 (A. Kannan v. State by Inspector of Police, CCIW CID Police, Coimbatore and

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/287073 (Thambiraj and others v. State by Inspector of Police, CCIW CID, Karur). In both the cases, the learned

brother and sister judges, under identical circumstances, have held that the complaint itself is barred by limitation u/s 81(4) of the Tamil Nadu

cooperative societies Act and consequently set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused.

Such view of this Court as referred to above in the cases referred supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Applying the

same, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aside. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed by setting

aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below. The petitioner/accused is acquitted from the charges framed

against him. The bail bond, if any executed by the accused shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded

to him.