Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C against 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 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.
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.
2. 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 under Section 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.
3. Heard both sides.
4. 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?"
5. 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.
6. 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 under
Section 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.
7. 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.
8. I would like to refer to the decision of this court reported in 2007 (7) MLJ 1048 (Senthil Kumar vs. Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Madurai and others), 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 under Section 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.
9. Accordingly, both these criminal revisions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vj2 23.07.2009 Index : Yes Internet: Yes To 1. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras G.RAJASURIA,J., vj2 Crl.R.C.Nos.630 & 640 of 2006 23.07.2009