LAWS(MAD)-1984-11-7

D R DEVARAJAN Vs. STATE

Decided On November 26, 1984
D.R.DEVARAJAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions have been filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.175 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur. The Accused 52, 13, 39 and 3 are the petitioners in these petitions respectively.

(2.) The respondent the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Vellore, has filed this Criminal prosecution against 86 persons for offences under Ss.120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with S.109 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges relate to the grant of loans and advances by the Government to the ryots in Tiruppathur Taluk of North Arcot District under the Intensive Manuring Scheme and Groundnut Export Orientation Programme between 1968 and 1972. The loans were granted in the form of chemical fertilizers on the understanding that the value of the same should be repaid in a lump sum at the time of the harvest. Similar loans were also advanced in cash for growing vegetables. The Grama Sevaks and the Agricultural Assistants have to prepare the loan order proposals after verifying the correctness of the information contained in the applications given by ryots regarding the extent of land owned by them and the crops raised by them with reference to the village chitta and adangol and also by inspecting the lands. The Extension Officer (Agriculture) and the Special Deputy Agricultural Officer have to scrutinise and recommend the proposals. The Block Development Officer, Special Deputy Tahsildar and the Special District Agricultural Officer have to sanction the loans after verifying the correctness of the particulars contained in the proposal, and disburse the loan to the applicants. At the relevant point of time, the accused 1, 2, 18 and 70 were Village Officers; the accused 3 and 39 were Grama Sevaks; the accused 6, 9, 10 and 29 were Agricultural Assistants; the accused 5, 7 and 5(?) were Deputy Agricultural Officers; the accused 4 and 57 were Extension Officers; the accused 12 and 11 were Deputy Tahsildar; the accused 13, 34, 40, 44 and 52 were Block Development Officers and the accused 14 to 17 were Special District Agricultural Officers and the other accused were private individuals. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to do or cause to be done certain illegal acts, to wit, to cheat the Government by false representation and obtain the aforesaid loans and, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, committed various acts of malfeasance and misfeasance to the extent of about one lakh of rupees by means of false declaration, furnishing false certificates regarding possession of the land, the nature of crops, the title to the properties, forged and used forged documents as genuine or having reason to believe the same to be forged and by impersonation and thereby cheated the Government to the Extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In 1973, the matter came to light and the Collector of North Arcot at Vellore made a detailed enquiry and laid a complaint before the police on 6-4-1974. It was registered as Cr. No.93/74 of Kanhili police station in Tiruppattur Taluk. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police (the respondent) before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur on 4-6-1983 against 86 accused including the petitioners herein and it has been taken on file as C.C. No.175 of 1984. As many as 86 witnesses have been cited and 813 documents have been filed into Court. It is to quash this proceeding the accused 3, 13, 39 and 52 have come forward with these petitions.

(3.) The ground of attack against the prosecution is the inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and in the conduct of the investigation. The charges relate to the years between 1968 and 1972. But, the complaint has been given only on 6-4-1974 and the charge-sheet has been filed after 9 years of investigation. It is, therefore, contended by the petitioners that they are deeply prejudiced by this extraordinary delay and the prosecution must, therefore be quashed.