S. MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.547 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. After registering the case, the respondent police investigated and laid charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.6536 of 2015. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1139 of 2016 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge the accused from the case. After the enquiry, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore dismissed the petition vide order dated 22.08.2019. Challenging the same, the accused has filed the present revision before this Court.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2006 are solution was alleged to have been passed in the meeting held on 26.06.2006 and relying on the said resolution dated 26.06.2006, the deposits pending in matured stage in City Union Bank, Puraswalkkam at Rs.1,93,92,101/- were withdrawn and got transferred from the bank to the Mount road branch of Syndicate Bank and similarly transferred from Indian Bank, Rajakilpakkam to Syndicate bank, Mount Road Branch against the bylaw of the Society No.38 acted independently, opened the account in the name of the Society, the Savings Bank Account No.60022010056063 on 22.08.2006 divided into four parts and a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- on 16.09.2006, and Rs.5,43,000/- on 19.09.2006 and Rs.6,55,000/- on 20.09.2006 and Rs.4,45,549/- on 21.09.2006 and misappropriated. On 21.09.2006, a sum of Rs.45,12,337/- got transferred from Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch to Syndicate Bank, Selaiyur. Further in the matured deposit account in Syndicate Bank, Mount Road out of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs. 19,00,000/- was borrowed as a loan and the said amount also been transferred to Syndicate Bank, Selaiyur. From these amounts, withdrawn made on various dates with the aid of above mentioned resolution. Further a amount of Rs.5,06,545.37/- which was in mature deposit has been transferred to Saving Bank Syndicate Bank, Selaiyur. The membership fee collected in a sum of Rs.17,500/- remitted in the Savings Bank Account of Syndicate Bank, Selaiyur. He withdrawn a sum of Rs.13,67,462/- and misappropriated. From out of Rs.26,20,835/- on 25.04.2008 it was transferred to Syndicate bank, Selaiyur and misappropriated. The de-facto complainant from out of his membership and from the post of Treasurer, removed and on compromise from member of Executive Members K.Sambandan and Madappa Chettiar, he has been inducted and this action is unilateral action. The accused misused the resolution withdrawn a total sum of Rs.1,17,84,460/- in the year 2006 to 2008 and misappropriated thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 409,420,465,468 and 471 I.P.C.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was a Secretary of the SIVET Trust and he had functioned from 2006 to 2009. A complaint was given on 27.01.2011 and the complaint is bald from 2006 to 2009 and thereafter for the next two years, no material to show that Mr.C.Madasamy the then treasurer and Mr.P.Veloo the then President objected to bank operation of the Secretary. They did not to do because they were aware and they stood as party to the resolution passed on 23.06.2006, authorising General Secretary Murugesan the petitioner herein to operate bank accounts as single signatory. The document at page no.230 in the typed set of papers is the notice of Syndicate bank addressing of the Inspector of police giving the list of 28 cheques and all of them have been given to various contractors, suppliers, workmen. The photocopy of the cheques are given at page 298 to 325 and the 28 cheques are totalling to Rs.95,64,897/-. In page 241 of the typed set of papers, it is seen that four cheques amounting to Rs.22,20,561/- and thus 28 cheques and 4 cheques will amount to Rs.1,17,85,458/-. This is the figure roughly mentioned in the final report as having been misappropriated. The documents produced by the prosecution itself shows that it was all given to the contractors, suppliers, workmen and physically compound wall, ladies rest room have been constructed, computers have been purchased and constructing auditorium and showing proportionate amount spent in the following manner.