State vs M. Surendran

R. Mala, J.—The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai dated 18.12.2009 in C.C. No. 14 of 2004.

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

(i) A1 Anbalagan was working as Divisional Manager in the United India Insurance Company at Madurai from February 1997 to July 2000. The first respondent/A2 Surendran was working as Assistant Divisional Manager. If any Motor Accidents Claim Petition filed by the claimant is referred for compromise before the Lok Adalat, the Divisional Manager has power to settle the matter in respect of quantum of compensation and he has to follow the guidelines issued by the Head Office of United India Insurance, Chennai in Circular No. H.O.:MOD:402:98 dated 30.11.1998 Ex.P2.

(ii) A2 Surendran was the Officer-incharge of Division No. 4 of Motor third party claim section in United India Insurance Company at Madurai. The nature of the duty of A2 is to prepare Motor T.P.Claim note on the basis of the documents. A2 should be assisted for the Divisional Manager to verify each and every document. As per the circular issued by the Head Office of United India Insurance company, if the award of the Lok Adalat is reasonable, then he approve the same and put his signature.

(iii) A Motor Accidents Claim Petition in M.C.O.P. No. 447 of 1997 was filed before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Madurai, claiming compensation by the claimant, which was taken on file by the Insurance Company in file No. 394/97, Ex.P1 series. The claim petition has been filed relating to an accident occurred on 29.02.1996, wherein Pitchaimani sustained injuries by the Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 60 1146, belongs to one Petchiammal, which was insured from the period 22.06.1995 to 21.06.1995 and the policy number is 090201/558/31/21/16/9809/95. A2 handed over the case to one C.Ramamoorthy, who was the Panel Advocate to conduct the case in M.C.O.P.447 of 1997. In the police report, the registration number of the vehicle has not been mentioned and the case has been closed as ''Un Detected''. But, knowing fully well that the said motor accident claim petition was not a fit case to refer the matter before Lok Adalat, to cause wrongful loss to the United India Insurance Company in the matter of paying compensation to the claimant in file No. 394/97 in M.C.O.P. No. 447/97 on the file of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Madurai, A1 to A3 entered into a criminal conspiracy, referred the matter before the Lok Adalat under Ex.P 10 filed a joint memo, before the Lok Adalat settlement for Rs. 25,000/- and as per the joint memo, the award has also been passed. A2 has not obtained any opinion from the Advocate, who conducted the case. Therefore, A1 to A3, by abusing their official position, caused wrongful loss of Rs. 25,000/- to the United Insurance Company and hence, they committed the offence and based on the source information, P.W.10. Mr. Raju, Inspector of Police registered the case in R.C.1 A of 2003 against the accused on 13.01.2003 under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(v) P.W.11, Sankar, the Superintendent of Police took over the investigation and after getting proper permission from the Court and as per the search warrants Ex.P 22 and 24, they prepared search list Ex.P2 23 and recovered documents from the residence of the accused. After due completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence as stated above.

The learned trial Judge after following the procedure, framed necessary charges against the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P28. Accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied the same and stated that a false case has been foisted against them. No defence witness was examined on the side of the accused.

On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the first appellant/A2 not guilty for the offence under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and found the second respondent/A3 not guilty for the offence under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420 of I.P.C. and acquitted them from all the charges levelled against them. Since A1 died, the charges levelled against him are abetted .

Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

Challenging the judgment of acquittal, Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for C.B.I. would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that in the first information report, the name and registration number of the vehicle has not been mentioned and there is no evidence to show that the vehicle insured with the United India Insurance Company was involved in the accident and without considering the same, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and it was not a fit case for referring the matter before the Lok Adalat, knowing fully well the same, the respondents herein along with A1, have referred the matter before the Lok Adalat and caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 25,000/- to the United India Insurance Company and that factum was not considered by the trial Court and hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of acquittal and prayed for conviction of the respondents.

Resisting the same, Mr. Thirupathy, learned counsel for the first respondent/A2 and Mr. S.Muthu Saravanan, the learned counsel for the second respondent/A3 would submit that the injured has sustained head injury and it is true, he has taken treatment at Government Hospital and after considering his disability only, the Lok Adalat has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Admittedly, A2 had prepared the claim note only after the matter was settled before Lok Adalat and A3 has only signed the joint memo that too after the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat and he has nothing to with the commission of offence and that factum was correctly considered by the trial Court the trial Court has given a well reasoned judgment and they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Further, both the learned counsel for the respective respondents/A2 and A3 would submit that in the case of appeal against acquittal, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and the view favoring the accused has to be taken into consideration and hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and perusal of typed set of papers would show that A1 was the Divisional Manager, A2 was the Assistant Divisional Manager and A3 was the Panel Advocate in United India Insurance Company. Relating to the accident occurred on 29.02.1996, a case has been registered in crime No. 75 of 1996 for the offence under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. on the file of Chekkanoorani Police Station and as per the evidence of P.W.7, Cheriyan, Inspector of Police, the name and registration number of the vehicle have not been mentioned in the First Information Report. The claimant viz., Pitchaimani has filed a motor accident claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 447 of 1997 for claiming for compensation. The case has been entrusted with the panel Advocate Mr. Ramamoorthy, P.W.6. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where, it was settled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Even though it was stated that the claimant taken treatment only in the Government Hospital and he sustained simple injuries, no document has been filed to prove the medical expenses.

It has been submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellant that the first information report in crime No. 75 of 1996 has also been closed by the said police as ''Un Detected'' and in the absence of Advocate''s opinion, the respondents and A1 caused wrongful loss to the Insurance Company. Admittedly, in the first information report, the name of the vehicle and the registration number of the vehicle has not been mentioned, whereas, in the Lok Adalat, the matter has been settled and award has also been passed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

Admittedly, during the Lok Adalat, the amount has been settled and thereafter only, the claim note has been prepared and the respondents and A1 had signed on the same. In the Lok Adalat, quantum of compensation has been fixed in the absence of P.W.6, C.Ramamoorthy, who is the panel advocate of the case in M.C.O.P. No. 447 of 1997, A3 Elangovan, another panel advocate has singed the joint memo and these aspects have been correctly considered by the trial Court. In such circumstances, there is no evidence to show that these respondents, with an intention to cause wrongly loss to the Insurance Company, conspired and fraudulently and dishonestly prepared the claim note. Per contra, only after arriving the settlement before the Lok Adalat, joint memo has been filed and thereafter, the claim note has been prepared by the respondents.

It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence. But, here in this case, it is pertinent to note that the complaint has not been given by the Insurance Company for the dereliction of duty of the respondents, whereas, only on the source of information, the case has been registered and after the investigation, charge sheet has been levelled against the Divisional Manager and Assistant Divisional Manager and the Panel Advocate.

In such circumstances, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove that with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Insurance Company, the respondents referred the matter to Lok Adalat. Furthermore, it is well settled that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on records, the appellate should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and the view favoring the accused has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no iota of evidence before this Court to show that the first respondent/A2 have committed the offences under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the second respondent/A3 has committed the offence under Sections 120(b) read with 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420 of I.P.C.. The trial Court has also considered the same in a proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion and hence, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.

In the result Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2009 passed in C.C. No. 14 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai is hereby confirmed.