In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 22/11/2004
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ
Crl.R.C.No.505 of 2004
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.3226 and 3227 of 2004
1. L.Narayanasamy
2. S.Rangasami
3. A.RAfiq Ahamed Shakir ... Petitioners
-Vs-
STATE :: rep.by:
The Inspector of Police
C.C.I.W. - CID
Chennai City Unit
Chennai 600 002 Respondent
Prayer: Revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for the relief stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesalu
For respondent : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Advocate Crl. Side
:O R D E R
Petitioners as accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.7582 of 2002 has
filed the above criminal revision case against the order dated 10.02.2004
passed in Crl.M.P.No.237 of 2003 in C.C.No.7582 of 2002 by the Court of XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The petitioner has filed the Crl.M.P.No.237 of 2001 under
239 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to discharge the petitioners/A2 to
A4 to prevent them from harassment by the arduous trial.
3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that on the basis
of the complaint lodged by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
(Credit), Adyar, Chennai, in respect of the enquiry under Section 81 of the
Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, relating to the misappropriation of a sum of
Rs.7,82,425/-, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.4 of
1999 and filed a complaint against the petitioners along with seven others in
C.C.No.7582 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai; that the petitioners filed discharge petition in
Crl.M.P.No.237of 2003 before the trial Court for seeking to discharge them on
the ground that no prima facie case has been made out against these
petitioners; that the very same Deputy Registrar, who had conducted the
surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act is not a competent person to lodge Criminal complainant based on
the enquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies
Act, 1983; that even in the charge sheet, no specific charges have been made
against the petitioners herein but it was simply and generally stated against
these petitioners along with seven others that they have committed offences
under Section 120-B r/w 408r/w 34,467, 471 r/w 467 and 477-A IPC in the very
first charge; that in respect of other general charges, the averments in the
charge sheet do not attract offences under Sections 408 r/w 34 IPC asagainst
A3 and A$ and under Section 408 r/w 34,477-A IPC as against A2; that in this
case previous sanction as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act, 1983 and on such averments, they pray for the prayer extracted
supra.
4. Heard both.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
citing Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 would
argue to the effect that no case shall be entertained by any Court without the
sanction being accorded by the Registrar for any act done under the said Act.
6. Learned Government Advocate on the criminal side appearing
on behalf of the respondent would counter the arguments to the effect that
Section 164 is only a case registered under Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies
Act, 1983 but the case registered under the Indian Penal Code and only when a
case is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act, 1983, the condition imposed under Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Socities Act is relevant and not otherwise and therefore, Section
164 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 has absolutely no
bearing on the case registered against the petitioners herein and therefore,
would seek to dismiss the above criminal revision case.
7. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to
the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both,
for the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the view that the application
filed before the lower Court under Section 239Cr.PC seeking to discharge the
petitioners on such grounds alleged on the part of the petitioner has been
rightly dealt with by the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai in the manner that is required under law so as to arrive at the right
conclusion to dismiss the discharge application filed by these petitioners and
this Court does not see any valid or tangible reasons insisting to cause its
interference and hence the following Order:-
In result,
i) the above criminal revision case does not merit acceptance
and becomes liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly;
ii) the order dated 10.02.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.237 of
2003 in C.C.No.7582 25 of 2002 by the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai is confirmed;
Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.Nos.3226 and 3227 of 2004 are
dismissed.
22.11.2004
Index: Yes
Internet Yes
kvsg
To
1) The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
2) The Inspector of Police,C.C.I.W. – CID,
Chennai City Unit,Chennai 600 002
3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 600 104.