State vs Seetharaman

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

The respondent State has filed this appeal, challenging the order of acquittal dated 29.11.2004, made in C.C. No. 102 of 1999, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kulithalai, Trichy District. The respondent herein said to be a godown in-charge was prosecuted for the commission of offences under Sections 408 and 477-A of I.P.C and after full-fledged trial, by the above said order, he was acquitted of all the charges.

The facts leading to the appeal, briefly, narrated as follows:

(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent/accused was appointed as Typist in the services of Karur Co- operative Handlooms Export Project, Karur and got promotion as Senior Clerk and he was put in-charge of godown between 10.04.1989 to 03.06.1993 and as such, he was in-charge of the goods stored in the said godown. Duties also cast upon him to deduct the stocks, which are sent away from the godown and also include the stocks in the Stock Register as and when it is delivered to the godown, by maintaining proper documents and make entries in the relevant registers. Further, the respondent/accused, without adhering to the duties and responsibilities and in order to gain pecuniary and unfair advantage for his own benefit, has diverted the stocks and thereby caused loss to the above said concern to the tune of Rs. 27,800.40 paise and hence, he is liable to be prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 408 and 477-A of I.P.C.

P.W.3, based on a report submitted to him under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, has lodged a complaint under Ex.P.7, to P.W.6. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.6 registered a F.I.R under Ex.P.14 against the respondent/accused on 18.10.1995 at about 8.15 hours. P.W.6 conducted the investigation and examined 15 witnesses, including P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. As per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, C.C.I.W.,C.I.D., P.W.6 has handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W, C.I.D, Dindigul on 07.02.1992. P.W.7, on receipt of the case-diary from P.W.6, continued the investigation and found that P.W.6 has already recorded the statement of witnesses, which included P.Ws.1 to 3. On 28.03.1998, he re-examined P.W.4 and recorded his statement and handed over the investigation to Mr. Radhakrishnan, who after completion of investigation, has filed a final report charging the respondent/accused under Sections 408 and 477-A of I.P.C.

The Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kulithalai, on receipt of the charge-sheet, issued summons to the respondent/accused for his appearance and framed charges under Section 408 and 477(A) of I.P.C and question him and he pleaded not guilty of the charges.

The prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.14. When the respondent/Accused was examined under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him, he denied it as false. The respondent/accused has also filed a written statement denying his complicity in the commission of the offences, for which he was charged. But, he did not let in any oral evidence and not marked any exhibits.

The Trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence has found him not guilty of the charges framed against him vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.2014 and aggrieved by the same, the respondent/State has filed this Criminal Appeal.

Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has drawn the attention of the Court to the oral and documentary evidence, especially the testimony of witnesses P.W.4-Manavalan and P.W.5-Nagarajan coupled with Exs.P. 8 to P.10 and would submit that the prosecution proved the testimonies of the above said witnesses and proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has rejected the minor trivialities as major one and recorded acquittal and hence, she prays for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

Per contra, Mr. Muthu Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would submit that the cross-examination of testimonies of P.Ws.4 and 5, especially the oral testimony of P.W.4 that he has not conducted proper enquiry, collected relevant documents and not examined important witnesses and merely submitted his report, marked as Ex.P.11, based on the surmises and conjectures and the Duty Roasters, marked as Exs.P.8 and Ex.P.9 would also disclose that the respondent/accused was not put in-charge of the godown and he was only a Typist and the Trial Court, on over all appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly arrived at a conclusion to acquit the respondent/accused. He would further contend that power of this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal is very limited and prays for dismissal of this Criminal Appeal.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused and also perused the oral and documentary evidence as well the original records.

This Court, vide judgment dated 03.03.2015 (today), made in Crl.A(MD).No. 136 of 2005, has confirmed the order of acquittal passed against the respondent/accused relating to the period between 10.04.1989 and 03.06.1993 and in respect of this appeal also, the allegation is that the petitioner as the godown in-charge, has deliberately diverted stocks and made a deficit and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 27,800/-, thereby committed the offence under Section 408 and 477-A of I.P.C. The witnesses examined and the exhibits marked in C.C. No. 99/1999, which is the subject matter of Crl.A.(MD).No. 136/2005 are also the same in C.C. No. 102/1999, which is the subject matter of this appeal also.

This Court on going through the testimonies of witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 coupled with duty roasters/Exs.P.8 and P.9 found that P.W.5, during the course of enquiry did not examine the relevant witnesses and collected relevant materials and documents and mainly placed reliance upon the alleged statement given by the respondent/accused, marked as Ex.P.10. Admittedly, the duty roasters marked as Ex.P.8 and P.9 would disclose that the petitioner was working as a Typist and not the godown in-charge and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that he was in-charge of the godown.

The reasons assigned by this Court for confirming the order of acquittal in Crl.A.No. 136/2005 are squarely applicable to this case also.

This Court, on an independent application of mind and over all materials, is of the view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion to acquit the respondent/accused and hence, I find no merits in this appeal.

In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of acquittal passed the trial Court, dated 29.11.2004 made in C.C. No. 102 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kulithalai.