ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case has been filed by A. 2 in c. C. No:111/90 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore which was convicted for offences under Section 120 B r/w. 109, 467, 471 r/w. 467, 477 A, 467 (four counts), 471 r/w. 467 (two counts) 49 and 477a IPC and sentenced to imprisonment till raising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/= for each offence mentioned above totalling Rs. 4,500/=, in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment, which has been confirmed by the Additional District and sessions Judge, Vellore in C. A. No:40 of 1994, dated 13. 6. 2003.

(2.) THE brief facts which lead to the filing of this revision Case are as follows:- (a) THE petitioner who is A. 2 in the Calendar Case is an agricultural Extension Officer of the Polur Panchayat Union and in that capacity he was also the Ex-Officio President of the Polur Agro Engineering and service Cooperative Centre, which was registered as a Cooperative Society under the Cooperative Societies Act. THE main object of the Centre is to render services to the agriculturists by supplying the agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural implements to the ryots at reasonable prices. THE Managing Directors of the Agro Centres are empowered to purchase those articles and sell them to the ryots at reasonable rates of profits. THE Managing Directors are designated as Block Managers who are the full time employees of the Centres. THE Extension Officer (Agriculture) of the panchayat Union in whose jurisdiction the centre operates is the Ex-officio president of the Agro Centre. He belongs to the Agricultural Department on deputation to the post. (b) THE first accused was the Managing Director -cum-Block Manager of the Polur Agro Centre. THE second accused, the petitioner herein was the Agricultural Extension Officer and the Chairman of the Centre. Another accused Karuppiah is an individual, Proprietor of Kalai Mark Ploughs at melur in Madurai District. THEre are other staffs like Clerks to look after the daily service of the Centre. THEy used to maintain day book, ledger cash book etc. , Entries should be made by the Clerk -cum- salesman in a day book and normally it must be countersigned by the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Centre. Every day's account should be closed with the signature of the managing Director, the Chairman the Salesman of the Centre. Money payable to anybody should be paid only by way of cheque signed by the Managing Director and the Chairman. (c) During the Audit Accounting Year 1979-80, P. W. 3 found that Voucher No. 236 and 247 (A), dated 24. 10. 1980 and 1. 11. 180 to the value of rs. 4,000/= each had been forged in the name of Coimbatore Agro Engineering service and Traders. and the lea that Rs. 8000/= by way of two vopuchers prepared and amount were to be paid to Coimbatore Company was rejected by the auditor. In Ex. P. 19, report, the Auditor has specifically made the remarks that these two vouchers have been forged. In Ex. P. 2, the day book, the entry relating to the Voucher 236 and 247 (A) were found missing. Instead, an advance of Rs. 4,000/= to Kalai Mark Plough works and K. G. Lakshmanan were found substituted in that place which are marked as EXs. P. 3 and P. 4. According to the auditor, the written sheets from the day book have been removed and substituted by fresh sheets. According to him an attempt has been made to misappropriate the public money.

(3.) IN Gnanasekaran Vs. State by INspector of Police, CCIW, cid, Cuddalore, reported in 1984 L. W. (Crl.) 44, this Court held thus:- "in this revision against the order of the Sessions judge confirming a conviction under Ss. 477-A and 409, IPC, it was contended for the petitioner that the person who conducted the enquiry in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under S. 65 of the cooperative Society Act, did not examine the entries in the stock register, Ex. P. 4 and also the cash book, that the entire conviction was based on th3e entry of 5 bags under Ex. P. 5 while there was no corresponding entry in the sales chitta and day book and that does not mean that the entry under Ex. . 5 is a false one, that the prosecution has to prove the necessary ingredients by positive and acceptable evidence and that the mere false entry or failure to account for itself is not sufficient to warrant a conviction under S. 477-A IPC or under s. 409 IPC and thus onus of the prosecution never shifts to the accused. It was further contended that mere false entry is not sufficient and further evidence to prove the ingredients are necessary. IN the instant case, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that the accused had secured the goods and he was under a duty to account to the Society and that he has made false entries etc,. ti s well established that in our criminal jurisprudence, the accused is entitled to put forth inconsistent pleas and the onus of the prosecution never shifts. IN my view, the stray suggestion put to P. W. 2 would not automatically establish that the petitioner had made false entries and thereby misappropriated the value of the goods. "