S DURAIRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 409,477 and 120(b) IPC stands ar-rayed as the third accused in C.C. No. 154 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.l, Tindivanam, Villupuram (Dt.) and seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him.

(2.) The Crime No.2 of 1.993 came to be reg-istered on the report of the Assistant Direc-tor, Khadi and Village Industries, Villupuram informing the misappropriation of stock and cash at Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Khadi Kraft, Tindivanam by its Manager in connivance with Audit staff. In such complaint, it was informed that while the Manager did not remit the sale proceeds amount of Us.62,396, the petitioner herein, who au-dited the accounts of the said office upto 30.09.1990 did not bring to the notice of anybody the misappropriation committed by the Manager and thus he acted in collusion with the Manager. It was averred that the petitioner herein ought to have sent a spe-cial report informing the misappropriation to the complainant's notice and he had failed to do so. However, it is averred that the pe- titioner passed the remittance register and thus, acted in collusion with the Manager in misappropriation of the cash. After in-vestigation, a charge sheet was filed before the lower Court on 14.06.2002. The charge sheet i n so far as this petitioner is concerned states that he audited the accounts for the .period-from 01.04.1990 to 30.09.1990 and did not bring the misappropriation of the cash to the knowledge of anybody nor sent any special report to the Board.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner sub-mits that the prosecution of the petitioner is totally unwarranted resulting in him fac-ing undue harassment and rigour of trial in circumstances, where the records of the complainant in the case would show that he indeed had reported misappropriation of the cash by the Manager and that action against the Manager (lowed therefrom. The complaint and also the statement of witness record under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would nec-essarily fail on the face of the record. So stat-ing, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the certified copies and documents obtained by the petitioner through the Rights to Information Act. On perusal thereof, it is seen under inter departmental communication Na. Ka. No. 18850/FA/01 dated 19.04.2006, Xerox copies of the audit report pertaining to Tindivanam Khadi Kraft branch for the period of April 1990 to September 1990 more particularly Audit remarks in Sr. Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 were forwarded. The certified copy forwarded under Right to Information Act informs that Audit objection in Sr. No.25 was raised by the Assistant Inspector Thiru S. Durairaj i.e. the petitioner herein. Such document, which spelt out the extent of loss in a sum of Rs.6,64,734.30 due to the wrong doing of the Manager/first accused reveals that Audit objection in Sr. No.25 related to the period from April 1990 to September 1990 and that the objection raised by the petitioner herein was in respect of sum of Rs. 65,561.55 misappropriated in such pe-riod .