P. Jebac Angel Martin and etc. vs State

A. Selvam, J.—These criminal revision cases have been filed against the Judgments passed in Calendar Case Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and

62 by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tirunelvell and in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 of 2001 by the Additional

Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No. 57 of 1999 can be stated like thus;

The first accused was served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-operative Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store, Nazreth. The

second accused has served as writer. From 20-12-1993 to 1-11-1994 both the accused have colluded together and taken amount for purchasing

groceries and cosmetics, and after purchasing groceries and cosmetics, they failed to remit balance amount of Rs. 49,550/- and both of them have

defalcated the balance amount. Under the said circumstances, both the accused are said to have committed offences under Sections 409, 408,

477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused, has framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and

explained to the accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 have been examined and Exs. P1 to P26 have been marked. When the accused have been

questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied

their complicity in the crimes. On the side of the accused, Ex. Dl has been marked and no oral evidence has been adduced on their side.

The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record has found the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused guilty under Sections 408, 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each offence with default clause.

Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2001 and the

second accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The first appellate Court after re-appraising the evidence available on record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2001 and set aside the

conviction and sentence passed against the second accused and partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2001 and found the first accused guilty

u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence Imposed by the trial Court.

Against the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below, Criminal Revision Case No. 1025 of 2003 has been filed by the first accused.

The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No. 58 of 1999 can be stated like thus;

The first accused has served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-operatie Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store, Nazreth. The

second accused has served as writer. From 13-4-1995 to 30-1-1996, both the accused have colluded together and taken amount for purchasing

groceries and cosmetics, and failed to remit the balance amount of Rs. 32,677.65 and thereby both of them are said to have committed offences

under Sections 409, 408, 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused, has framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and

explained to the accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 have been examined and Exs. P1 to P27 have been marked. When the accused have been

questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied

their complicity in the crimes. On the side of the accused, Ex. D1 has been marked and no oral evidence has been adduced on their side.

The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, has found the first accused guilty under Sections 409, 477(a) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused guilty under Sections 408, 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each offence with default clause.

Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2001 and the

second accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The first appellate Court after reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2001 and ultimately set

aside the conviction and sentence passed against the second accused and partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2001 and found the first

accused guilty u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.

Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, Criminal Revision Case No. 1026 of 2003 has been filed at the instance of the

first accused.

The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No. 59 of 1999 can be stated like thus;

The first accused has served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-operative Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store, Nazreth. The

second accused has served as writer. From 7-8-1996 to 24-8-1996, both the accused have colluded together and taken amount for purchasing

groceries and cosmetics, and failed to remit the balance amount of Rs. 2,650/- and thereby they committed offences under Sections 409, 407,

477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused, has framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and

explained to the accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 have been examined and Exs. P1 to P27 have been marked. When the accused have been

questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied

their complicity in the crimes. On the side of the accused, Ex. D1 has been marked and no oral evidence has been adduced on their side.

The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record has found the first accused guilty under Sections 409, 477(a) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused guilty under Sections 408, 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each offence, with default clause.

Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2001 and the

second accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The first appellate Court after reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2001 filed by the second

accused and thereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal

No. 79 of 2001 and ultimately found the first accused guilty u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the

trial Court.

Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the first accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1027 of 2003.

The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No. 60 of 1999 can be stated like thus;

The first accused has served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-operative Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store, Nazreth. The

second accused has conducted canteen. The third accused has served as writer. From 2-3-1994 to 13-2-1995, with the intention of committing

crimes, the first accused against Rule 70, Sub-rule 32(2)(a) has supplied groceries to the second accused and the third accused has created bogus

records and thereby they caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,33,799.85. Under the said circumstances, the first accused has committed offences

under Sections 409, 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the second accused has committed offences under Sections 406, 109

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the third accused has committed offences under Sections 477(a), 408, 109 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused, has framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and

explained to the accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 have been examined and Bxs. P1 to P84 have been marked. When the accused have been

questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they

denied their complicity in the crimes. On the side of the accused, Ex. D1 has been marked and no oral evidence has been adduced on their side.

The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, has found the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the second accused guilty u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused guilty under Sections 408,

477(a) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the first and third accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also

imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each offence, with default clause. The second accused has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous

imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause.

Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2001, the

second accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2001 and the third accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2001, on the file of the

Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The first appellate Court, after reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2001 filed by the third

accused and thereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal

No. 80 of 2001 and ultimately found the first accused guilty u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the

trial Court. The first appellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2001 filed by the second accused and thereby confirmed the

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

Against the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below, the first accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1028 of 2003 and the

second accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 731 of 2005.

The case of the prosecution In Calendar Case No. 61 of 1999 can be stated like thus;

The first accused has served as Special Officer in E.E. Thlruchendur Co-operative Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store, Naxreth; The

second accused has conducted canteen. The third accused has served as writer. From 8-3-1995 to 6-3-1996, all the accused have conspired

together with the view to defalcate the amount belong to the Co-operative Store, the first accused has sold groceries to the second accused against

Rule 70, Sub-rule 32(2)(a) of the Rules and thereby defalcated Rs. 2,63,274.65. Under the said circumstances, the first accused is said to have

committed offences under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the second accused has committed offences

under Sections 406 and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the third accused has committed offences under Sections 477(a),

408, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused, has framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and

explained to the accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 have been examined and Exs. P1 to P65 have been marked. When the accused have been

questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they

denied their complicity in the crimes. On the side of the accused, Ex. D1 has been marked and no oral evidence has been adduced on their side.

The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record has found the first accused guilty u/s 409 and 477(a) read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, the second accused guilty u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused guilty under Sections 408 and 477(a)

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the first and third accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed

a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each offence, with default clause. The second accused has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment

and also imposed a fine of Rs, 5,000/- with default clause.

Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2001, the

second accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2001 and the third accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001, on the file of the

Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The first appellate Court after reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001 filed by the third

accused and thereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal

No. 81 of 2001 and ultimately found the first accused guilty u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the

trial Court. The first appellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2001 filed by the second accused and thereby confirmed the

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the first accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1029 of 2003 and the

second accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 732 of 2005.

In Calendar Case No. 62 of 1999 the case of the prosecution can be stated like thus;

The first accused has served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-operative Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store, Nazreth. The

second accused has conducted canteen. The third accused has served as writer. From 27-3-1996 to 8-6-1996, all the accused have conspired

together for the purpose of committing defalcation and the first accused against Rules had sold groceries to the second accused and the third

accused has created false accounts with the connivance of the accused 1 and 2 and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 48,812/-. Under the

said circumstances, the first accused has committed offences under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the

second accused has committed offences under Sections 409 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused has

committed offences under Sections 477(a), 408 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused, has framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and

explained to the accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 have been examined and Exs. P1 to P36 have been marked, When the accused have been

questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied

their complicity in the crimes. On the side of the accused, Ex. D1 has been marked and no oral evidence has been adduced on their side.

The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, has found the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the second accused guilty u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused guilty under Sections 408

and 477(a) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the first and third accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and

also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each offence, with default clause. The second accused has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous

imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause.

Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2001, the

second accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2001 and the third accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2001, on the file of the

Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.

The first appellate Court after reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2001 filed by the third

accused and ultimately set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has allowed Criminal Appeal No.

82 of 2001 in part and found the first accused guilty u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial

Court. The first appellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2001 filed by the second accused and thereby confirmed the conviction

and sentence passed by the trial Court.

Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the first accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1030 of 2003 and the

second accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No. 730 of 2005.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present criminal revision cases, common order is pronounced.

The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case Nos. 57 to 59 of 1999 is that the first accused viz., Jebac Angel Martin has served as Special

Officer during the relevant period in E.E. Tirunelveli Co-operatie Weaving Mills Employees'' Co-operative Store. The second accused viz.,

Chandira has served as writer and both the accused have taken certain amounts so as to purchase groceries and cosmetics, and they failed to remit

the balance amount. Under the said circumstances, Calendar Case Nos. 57 to 58 of 1999 have been instituted against them. The trial Court has

found both the accused guilty under the said Sections mentioned supra. But, the first appellate Court has acquitted the second accused and

modified the conviction imposed against the first accused.

The specific contention of the prosecution in Calendar Case Nos. 60 to 62 of 1999 is that the first accused viz., Jebac Angel Martin has

served as Special Officer in the said society and the second accused viz., Murugan has conducted canteen in it and the third accused has served as

writer. During the relevant period, the first accused byway of flouting the existing Rules has sold groceries to the second accused who is not at all a

member of the society and the third accused has created bogus accounts so as to commit defalcation and thereby caused loss of amounts

mentioned in Calendar Case Nos. 60 to 62 of 1999. The trial Court has convicted all the accused mentioned in Calendar Case Nos. 60 to 62 of

1999. But, the first appellate Court has acquitted the third accused and modified the conviction imposed against the first accused and confirmed

the sentence imposed against the second accused.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 has repeatedly contended that

the revision petitioner/first accused has only served as Special Officer and he has had no connection whatsoever with the dealings alleged to have

been made by the second and third accused, and for the offences alleged to have been committed by the second and third accused, the first

accused cannot be mulcted with punishment, but, the Courts below without considering the role of the first accused, have erroneously found him

guilty and, therefore, the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below in Calendar Case No. 57 to 62 of 1999 and in Criminal Appeal Nos.

77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82 of 2001 are liable to be set aside.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/second accused in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 730 to 732 of 2005 has also

contended with great vehemence that the second accused viz., Murugan has only conducted canteen and he purchased groceries on credit basis

and he has no connection with the alleged offences, but, the Courts below without considering the above aspects, have erroneously found him

guilty and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court in C.C. Nos. 60 to 62 of 1999, upheld by the first appellate

Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 83, 84 and 85 of 2001 are liable to be set aside.

The specific contention of the prosecution is that all the accused have colluded together and thereby caused loss to the society in question. It is

true that the first accused has served as a Special Officer during the relevant period. One witness by name Balagurunathan has been examined as

P.W. 7 in Calendar Case Nos. 57 to 59 of 1999. He has clearly stated in his evidence that as per Sub-rule 27(1)(a), the Special Officer is alone

responsible for the assets and liabilities of the society and further, he is alone responsible for all the credits and liabilities of the society and the first

accused has been appointed only for the society in question. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 7 viz., Balagurunathan, it is made clear to the

Court that for all the acts and omissions of the society, the first accused is alone responsible. Simply because, the second accused found in the said

cases viz., Chandira has served as accountant during the relevant period, the first accused cannot shirk his sole responsibility. Therefore, it is quite

clear that the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of

2003 is sans merit.

It has already been pointed out that the second accused in Calendar Case Nos. 60 to 62 of 1999 has conducted canteen during the relevant

period and he has not at all a member of the society, but, the first accused without observing Rules of the society, has sold groceries to the second

accused on credit basis and the third accused found therein has created bogus records. Therefore, it is quite clear that without common intention

amongst accused, the first accused would not have given groceries to the second accused on credit basis.

At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the evidence of one eyewitness by name Madasamy and he has been examined as P.W. 8

in Calendar Case Nos. 60 to 62 of 1999. He has stated in his evidence that during the relevant period, he served as Bill Clerk in the society and at

that time the first accused has served as Special Officer and the third accused viz., Chandra has served as Clerk and the second accused viz.,

Murugan has run a canteen and he is not at all a member of the society. On 2-3-1994 the first and third accused have asked him to give groceries

to the second accused viz., Murugan on credit basis and on various dates, he has given groceries to the second accused viz., Murugan on credit

basis. Therefore, it is quite clear that only with the connivance of all the accused, the second accused has received groceries from the society on

credit basis, even though he is not at all a member of the same. Therefore, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the second accused viz.,

Murugan has not committed any offence. Under the said circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 730 to 732 of 2005 is really sans merit.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also contended with great

vehemence that in respect of the alleged defalcation one Balagurunathan has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has not conducted enquiry

within a period as contemplated u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and he has submitted his enquiry report on 11-8-

1997 and all these cases have been instituted only in the year 1999 and, therefore, all the criminal proceedings taken against the first accused are

barred by limitation and on that ground also, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected.

In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 642 (A. Kannan v. State rep.

by the Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W., C.I.D. Police, Coimbatore) wherein this Court has held that as per Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative Societies Act, enquiry to be mandatorily completed within nine months from date of order of enquiry and hence complaint is barred by

limitation u/s 81(4) of the said Act.

For better appreciation, it would be more useful to look into Section 81(4) of the said Act and the same reads as follows:

The inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of ordering the inquiry or such further period or periods not exceeding

three months at a time as the next higher authority may permit, provided that such extended periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate.

From the close reading of the said section, it is made clear to the Court that enquiry contemplated u/s 81 of the said Act, should be completed

within nine months in aggregation, but, nowhere it is stated in the said Section that if any enquiry completed after the said period, the same would

be a bar to launch prosecution against the accused concerned. It is an axiomatic principle of law that enquiry u/s 81(4) of the said Act is only to

find out civil liability of the persons concerned, whereas in the present cases criminal liability of the accused has to be decided.

As adverted to earlier, the trial Court has found the first accused guilty under various sections. But, the first appellate Court has found him

guilty u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code. For all the offences mentioned in Indian Penal Code, the only limitation is mentioned in Section 468 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present criminal proceedings initiated against the first

accused are not at all barred by limitation. In fact, in the decision referred to supra, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been

invoked. Under the said circumstances, it is needless to say that the above limb of argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner In Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 is not legally correct.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also vehemently

contended that even though the first accused has acted with negligence, he has not done any wilful negligence and his mere negligence is not at all

sufficient to fasten liability against him and the Courts below have failed to consider the laches alleged to have been committed by him and,

therefore, the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in Subbammal and Others Vs. The President, The

Tenkasi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Tenkasi, wherein this Court has held that surcharge notice against ex-President and ex-Vice-President

and there is no wilful negligence on their part and their mere negligence is not sufficient to fasten liability.

In the instant case, it has been pointed out in many places that the first accused by way of flouting the mandatory rules of the society, has

supplied groceries to the second accused viz., Murugan, who conducted canteen and further his primary duty is to administer the entire assets of

the society and further he is solely responsible for all the acts and omissions. Therefore, the Court cannot come to a conclusion even for a minute

that the first accused has not done wilful negligence and he has done only a mere negligence. Therefore, the dictum found in the decision referred to

above is not at all suitable to the facts and circum stances of the present case. Under the said circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned

Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 is really sans merit.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also argued that of course

due to negligence of the first accused, the society has sustained loss and instead of sentencing the first accused, he may be directed to pay

compensation.

In support of his contention, he>has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in State Vs. Hanamappa, wherein It has been

held that a fine oft at least three times the amount involved may be imposed on the accused so that the aggrieved party or the institution can be

adequately compensated.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also drawn the attention

of the Court to the decision reported in 2007 (1) MLJ (Cri) 1054 (P. Selvarajan v. State, rep. by S.P.E. CBI GOW, Cochin and Anr.) wherein

this Court has held that considering physical condition of the accused sentence of ""till rising of the Court"" can be imposed.

At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code and the same reads as follows:

The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are-

First - Death;

Secondly - Imprisonment for life;

(Clause Thirdly omitted by Act 17 of 1949)

Fourthly - Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:

(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;

(2) Simple;

Fifthly - Forfeiture of property;

Sixthly - Fine.

Nowhere in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code it is stated that the Court can impose sentence to the extent of ""till rising of the Court.

For better appreciation, the Court can look into the decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chandrika, wherein the Hon''ble Apex

Court has held that if accused confesses his guilt, appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. Further, the approach of the Court in appeal or

revisions should be to find out whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of evidence on record. If he is guilty appropriate sentence is

required to be imposed or maintained. If the appellant or his counsel submits that he is not challenging the order of conviction as there is sufficient

evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the Court''s conscious must be satisfied before passing final order that the said

concession is based on the evidence on record. In such cases, sentence commensurating with the crime committed by the accused is required to be

Imposed. Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the Court

that as he is pleading guilty, sentence be reduced.

From the close reading of the decision rendered by the Apex Court, every Court is bound to impose sentence commensuratlng with the crime

committed by the accused. Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt, should not be a ground for reduction of sentence. Therefore, it is pellucid

that sentence should be imposed on the basis of the gravity of offences committed by the accused.

In the instant case, the prosecution has adduced replete evidence to show that the first accused has caused heavy loss to the society.

Therefore, sentence cannot be given to him till ""rising of the Court"" and the same is not at all contemplated in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Courts below have sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Since he has caused heavy

loss to the society, it is needless to say that the sentence imposed against him by the Courts below is perfectly correct and the same is in

consonance with the gravity of the offences committed by him. Therefore, the above limb of argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing

for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003 is not having attractive force.

The Courts below after having thorough discussion, have rightly sentenced the first and second accused and in view of the discussion made

earlier, this Court has not found even a flimsy ground to make interference with the well merited judgments passed by the Courts below and

altogether all the criminal revision cases deserve dismissal.

In fine, Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1025 to 1030 of 2003, 730 to 732 of 2005 deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed. The

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the revision petitioners/accused, upheld by the first appellate Court are confirmed. The

trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to incarcerate them in prison so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence.