P. ELENGO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned counsel for the second respondent.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 27/8/2014, the first respondent has registered a case in Cr.No.1 of 2014 against one Kulanthaivelu who was then holding the post of Secretary of Nevyeli Co-operative Housing Society and against 15 others for the offences under Ss. 403, 406, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 120(b) r/w.34 of IPC. The petitioner herein has been implicated as the ninth accused. As per the FIR, eight incidents of misappropriation in the Society was reported for a total sum of Rs.75,23,062.00. The petitioner has been implicated for having involved in misappropriation of Rs.52,500.00, Rs.6,611.00, Rs.80,352.00, Rs.20,20,000.00. The investigation culminated into framing of charges in C.C.Nos.57, 58, 59, 60 & 62 of 2016 for offences under Ss. 120B, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was working as a Special Officer of 8 Societies and supervising Co-operative Sub Registrar of 7 Societies. So far as the Nevyeli Co-operative Housing Society is concerned, the petitioner was employed as a Supervisor alone from 10/10/2002 to 31/10/2004 and thereafter, he was deputed as in-charge of Neyveli Co-operative Housing Society as an additional in-charge. Pursuant to the complaint, a report under Sec. 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act came to be filed. In the said report, it has been observed that the first accused namely, Kulandaivelu has remitted the alleged misappropriated amount to the society on 30/6/2014 itself and hence no penalty was levied against this petitioner in which surcharge proceedings was initiated under Sec. 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even from the averments in the FIR, no allegations were levelled against the petitioner. Since the FIR and the charge sheet do not contain the basic ingredients of alleged offences, the final report against the petitioner is vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental action initiated by the society was also dropped as against the petitioner and since the surcharge proceedings under Sec. 87 of the Act was also dropped, no criminal prosecution can lie as against this petitioner.