VELLAKOIL SARVODAYA SANGHAM Vs. JAYABALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision was sought to be admitted by the second witness by name Dhandapani, who is the Secretary of Vellakoil Sarvodaya Sangham against the two accused who are employees of the said Sangam, to challenge the judgment rendered in C.C.No.148 of 1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, Periyar District on 9.1 2. 1994 acquitting the second accused for the offences under Sections 409 and 477A of Indian Penal Code on two counts.

(2.) SINCE the second accused denied his complicity in toto for the offences above referred when questioned by the court below after furnishing all the necessary copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution, the trial court commenced the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution numbering 11 as P.Ws.1 to 1 1. Of the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.5 to 11 were treated as hostile as they had not supported the prosecution case, however, the core of the evidence given by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & 4 clinchingly renders support to the prosecution case and be that as it may, the trial court has rendered a finding which is inconclusive and incomplete. After having recorded the oral evidence of 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and 30 documents marked on their behalf as Ex.P-1 to P-30 and the evidence of one witness examined on behalf of the accused and two documents relied on behalf of the accused as Exs.D-1 and D-2, the trial court has rendered its finding to the effect that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and that the enturstment to and the liability of the accused had not at all been established by the prosecution and accordingly acquitted the accused by passing the impugned judgment. Aggrieved at this, P.W.2 the Secretary of the Vellakoil Sarvodaya Sangam being an aggrieved person has come forward with this revision. On ordering notice of motion, the learned Government Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the third respondent. SINCE the first accused had not at all attended the trial proceedings, though it was commenced, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him, which is still pending execution. Accordingly, case against the first accused for the relevant charges has been split up and the trial was commenced and proceeded against the second accused and consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal was recorded.

(3.) ON going through the impugned order, after hearing the learned Government Advocate, I had instructed him to get the concerned investigating Officer who is now working as Inspector at Thiruvannamalai in a different district and in compliance with the direction, the Inspector of Police (Crimes), Thiruvannamalai Police Station, who was the investigating Officer, made his appearance in this Court and when questioned, he feigned any knowledge of the receipt of his summons and gave several explanations for his non-appearance before the trial court on number of occasions. However, I asked him to file a sworn affidavit. Accordingly, on 16.7.1996 the Inspector filed a sworn affidavit into court explaining the circumstances which led to his non-appearance before the trial court on several occasions and by so doing he tendered his open apology and undertook further that on the receipt of summons, he would attend the trial court hereafter and give evidence for the reason that it was only he, who conducted the investigation and filed the final report against both the accused. Being an officer in-charge of the crime detection, on taking cognisance of the commission of an offence under Indian penology and having done the investigation and filed the final report against the persons who committed the offences, it must his duty to know the details of various stages and the manner in which the proceedings were going on in the court below and that must be the incumbent duty of every police officer. Being a police officer clamped with the power and uniform, it is not only the indicative of his smartness and his integrity and sincerity added with onerous responsibility to the department in which he works but also to the society which must be inherent to every officer. If the explanation given in the instant case is looked into in the context of the above inherent and basic necessity, I am not inclined to accept his explanation, but however, for an officer of his cadre with no blemishes so far it may not be proper to render any remarks for his actions. Enough for me at this stage to accept his explanation in full in view of his undertaking given in the open court that he would give evidence by appearing before the trial court till the case is over. Accordingly, the explanation given by the investigating officer Mr.Suryaprakash is hereby accepted with no more observations adverse or otherwise.