T SALAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one of the members in second respondent Bank. THE second respondent Bank entered into a contract with the first accused in this case by name Thangavel as computer coordinator on contract basis. THE second accused is the brother of the first accused. THE third accused is the Manager of the Bank. A4 and A5 are Assistant Managers and A6 is the Assistant and A7 is the cashier of the said bank. THE first accused after installation of the computer system in the second respondent Bank used to start it every day and in that process he was in the habit of transferring the amounts from the accounts of other members to his own account and thereby he had misappropriated to the tune of Rs.2.89 crores. When the matter was unearthed, a case came to be registered in Crime no.6 of 2003 under sections 120 B, 109, 409, 408, 406 and 477 A IPC on the file of the first respondent. THE first respondent, completing the investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.

(2.) MR. S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that though the first respondent has completed the investigation and laid charge sheet against all of the accused, they had not taken any steps to recover any cash from the accused and that even they did not take care of the action as against their immovable properties. In the petition, the petitioner has alleged that by means of ill-gotten money, he has purchased immovable properties in various places in the names of his relatives. Had the Investigating Agency gone deep into the matter, they might have done effective investigation in this matter and the same would have been an exhaustive one.

(3.) THIS Court sees considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since there had been misappropriation to the tune of crores of rupees, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Agency to pursue the bank accounts and other deposits of the first accused and if necessary, of other accused. It appears that they have not done so. It is all the more necessary for the first respondent to take care of the future interest of the complainants including the petitioner in this matter.