O M KANNAPPAN Vs. BASHEER AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 38 of 1985 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Tirupattur, North Arcot District. He is being prosecuted on a private complaint lodged by the respondent on 21.7.1977 for alleged offences under Secs.418, 477A and 468, Indian Penal Code. A few facts need narration. THE petitioner was the Village Headman of Udayandran Village, for several years. In the course of his duties, it is alleged that he was collecting land revenue from the respondent and others, more than what was due for each fasli. It appears, according to the complaint, that whatever monies were demanded were being paid by the complainant to the petitioner. When the complainant respondent in or about 1975 obtained the patta pass book, he was surpirsed to note that the petitioner had been collecting higher amounts as land revenue, than what was actually due. It is also the case of the respondent that the actual amount collected by the petitioner was not deposited into the Government Treasury and by this act, he had been cheated. Though no particular reference is made, it is the case of the complainant that certain documents had been falsified and the revenue records forged, in the process, by the petitioner with a view to cheat the respondent. THE complaint itself states that some receipts have been misplaced by the respondent and relevant records would be produced during trial. Initially, the respondent filed a private complaint on 12.7.1976 before the S.D.J.M., Tirupattur. THE then Magistrate directed investigation by the concerned police by forwarding the complaint under Sec.156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. THE Investigating Police registered the said complaint as Crime No.632 of 1976 and after investigation, filed a referred chargesheet on 19.7.1977 before the trial Magistrate. This report would indicate that there was no delinquency or misappropriation by the petitioner and none of the offences complained of by the respondent had been made out, even prima facie. THE amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner had been remitted in the Bank and intimated to the Tahsildar, Vaniyam-badi. THE Investigating Agency was of the view that on a mistaken impression, the respondent had come up with the private complaint, that the amounts paid by him had been misappropriated by the petitioner, without adjustment towards land revenue. No specific sum appears to have been cheated or is mentioned except a vague averment that the total amount would exceed Rs.2,500. On receipt of this report, the Magistrate does not appear to have made any endorsement on the referred report.

(2.) THE three courses that were open to the trial Magistrate then were firstly, to drop further action if he decided that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding any more. Secondly, he could have taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.190(1)(b), Crl.P.C. on the basis of the police report and issued process without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report. THE third way was to have taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.190(1)(a), Crl.P.C. on the basis of the original complaint and proceeded to examine the complainant and his witnesses upon oath, as provided under Sec.200, Crl.P.C. None of these courses had been adopted by the trial Magistrate. However, on 21st July, 1977, on receipt of the second complaint from the respondent, even without applying his mind to the earlier complaint, the trial Magistrate appears to have mechanically taken the case on file and issued process to the petitioner under Sec.204, Crl.P.C It is apparent that between the first and second complaints neither any fresh fact had arisen nor had any special case been made out for entertaining the second complaint. Further it appears from the records that the respondent was examined as P.W.1 when C.C.No. 469 of 1977 (the then number) was pending on the file of the S.D.J.M., Tirupattur, on 22.10.1983. On 14.5.1986, in the calendar case renumbered as C.C.No.38 of 1985 one Doraiswami had been examined as P.W.2. After that, there has been no progress in the case. It is represented by Thiru P.Bakthavatsalam, appearing for the respondent, that the respondent called for certain records to prove his case and since those documents had not been made available, the trial appears to be delayed. THE respondent has already got into the witness box as P.W.1 and deposed, his version. THE delay of over twelve years in this prosecution appears to be rather shocking.