R. Ayyavoo and P. Ravichandran vs State

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the judgment dated 16.05.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court No. 2), Coimbatore in C.R.P. Nos. 184 and 183 of 2004 respectively in reversing the order of discharge passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Coimbatore in C.M.P. Nos. 46 of 2003 and 1231 of 2001 in C.C. No. 158 of 2000 dated 16.07.2004, respectively,

these two criminal revisions are focussed.

A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these criminal revision

petitions would run thus:

(i) The police laid the police report as against the following persons, viz., R. Ayyavoo and P. Ravichandran in terms of Section 173 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for the offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477(A) IPC.

(ii) At the stage of framing charges, two Criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed in C.M.P. Nos. 46 of 2003 and 1231 of 2001 respectively by

the accused seeking to discharge them on various grounds including the one that absolutely, there was not even prima facie evidence to rope in the

accused in the said case and to frame charges; the learned Magistrate allowed both the applications discharging the accused.

(iii) Whereupon, the State preferred revisions as against the order of the lower court in C.R.P. Nos. 184 of 2004 and 183 of 2004 respectively

and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the orders of the lower court and held that charges could be framed as against both the accused.

(iv) Animadverting upon such orders of the revisional court/Sessions Court, these revisions have been filed by the accused persons, viz., R.

Ayyavoo and P. Ravichandran respectively on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

a) The sanction as contemplated u/s 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act was not obtained from the Registrar for prosecuting the

accused and

b) the police was not justified in laying the charge sheet based on time barred enquiry report furnished by the Co-operative official concerned,

which constituted the bed rock of the constitution.

Heard both sides.

The common point for determination in both these criminal revisions would run thus:

Whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in passing the orders by the learned Sessions Judge?

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would put forth and set forth his argument by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 164

of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and submit that palpably and pellucidly, unarguably and incontrovertibly, no sanction was obtained

from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in terms of Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and as such, the very taking of

the cognizance of the offences by the learned Magistrate got vitiated.

I would like to point out that such an argument as put forth on the side of the revision petitioners is not tenable for the reason that the gamut of

Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is only to the effect that, if at all any prosecution has to be launched invoking any of the

penal provisions contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, then the question of obtaining sanction u/s 164 from the Registrar

would arise for prosecuting the officials and not for misappropriation, criminal breach of trust etc., committed by any one under the Indian Penal

Code. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the said contention fails to carry conviction with this Court.

The second contention as put forth by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is on the fact that the very Section 81 enquiry report under

the said Act was submitted by the Co-operative official beyond the period of nine months altogether in violation of Section 81(4) of the Act and

such report cannot constitute the bed rock of this criminal prosecution.

I would like to refer to the decision of this Court reported in 2007 (7) MLJ 1048 (Senthil Kumar v. Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District

Judge) Madurai and Ors.), which would exemplify that the time barrier is only directory and not mandatory and furthermore, that is only an internal

arrangement in the Co-operative Department concerned and it contemplates that the Co-operative Department officials should speedily perform

their work. Over and above that even de hors the enquiry report submitted u/s 81 of the Act, the police investigation relating to misappropriation

and criminal breach of trust committed by the co-operative officials would stand independently and it is also quite obvious and axiomatic and in

such a case, I could see no merit in this revision.

Accordingly, both these criminal revisions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.