S S KARIKALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as an additional accused in the case in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2005 in C.C.No.384 of 2003 dated 18.01.2005, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thittakudi.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: THE petitioner is the Proprietor of M/S.Net Income Net Limited and the second respondent joined as a Member of the said Company. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, the Branch Manager of the Central Co-operative Bank, Thittakudi, a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2003, on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. After investigation, the first respondent had filed a final report against one Ganesan, who is the second respondent/A1, which was taken on file in C.C.No.384 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 467, 471 and 420 I.P.C. After furnishing the copies, charges were framed against the second respondent.

(3.) REFUTING the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is true, a charge sheet was filed against only the second respondent/A1, who is the sole accused. During the trial, P.W.3/Sadasivam has stated that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/S. Net India Net Limited Company and he received the amount. The amount is yet to be repaid to the Bank. So the petitioner had mis-appropriated the amount and on that basis only, he was impleaded as a second accused in this case. The learned Judicial Magistrate considered this aspect in proper perspective, allowed the petition and issued summons to the additional accused/petitioner. Hence there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and he prayed for dismissal of this revision. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision reported in the Apex Court.