MADHEESWARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is A-1, in C.C. No. 223 of i989, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Udhagamandalam. The Petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 120-B and section 409 Indian Penal Code alongwith four others arrayed as A-2 to A- 5. At the relevant time when the offence was allegedly committed, the petitioner was Assistant Engineer attached to Tamil. Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Udhagamandalam. The SubDivision, under the control of the petitioner had-two stores, for stocking materials like pipes, rods, etc. One of the stores for stocking material was situated 6 kms. away from the main office, where petitioner was working. A-2 to A-5 were then the watchmen in charge of the said stores. One of them would do night watching, while the others would be engaged in the day shift. The petitioner took charge of the store from his predecessor Chandrasekaran, cited as P.W. 1 in the charge sheet, on 21/4/1988. On 9/2/1989, A-2 complained in writing, to the petitioner, that when he checked the store articles, he found seven items missing. It is stated, in h is letter to the petitioner, as follows:

(2.) In this petition preferred under section 482 Cr. P.C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court, in so far as it relates in the Petitioner, Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had done everything within his power to bring to the notice of the higher authorities and the police, about the missing of certain items from the store room and that though the petitioner had taken charge from his predecessor of the store-room and hence gets entrusted with the property, unless there was material to show, in the record forwarded to court under section 173 Cr. P.C. that there was dishonest conversion or misappropriation of the property entrusted, the pending prosecution cannot be allowed to survive, in so far as the petitioner was concerned. There was practically no material to show any conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused. All that the Assistant Executive Engineer (P.W. 2 in the charge sheet) has stated is, that there was a delay in preferring of a report by the petitioner.

(3.) On this contention, I have heard Mr. Shanmughavelayudham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He submitted that once the petitioner had taken charge of the store-room from his predecessor, he was bound to account for the articles, since entrustment gets established. He pointed out, the statement recorded during investigation of Sridharan, another Executive Engineer, who has stated about improper maintenance of the stock register on 23/6/1987. He submitted, that apart from the particulars pointed out by the petitionerTs counsel, there was no other material available in the case record.