BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18/04/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN Criminal Revision Case No.175 of 2006 P.Narayanasamy .. Petitioner complainant Vs V.Somasundaram .. Respondent accused Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.1.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No.4294 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar. !For Petitioner .. Mr.Annamalai for Mr.K.M.Vijaiyakumar ^For Respondent .. No appearance :O R D E R
The Revision is directed against the order dated 10.1.2006 made in
Crl.M.P.No.4294 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Virudhunagar.
2.The gist of the case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant was working in Virudhunagar District
Central Co-operative Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him
and based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service. One
Somasundaram was examined as a witness on behalf of the Administration. During
the course of enquiry he gave evidence to the effect that the revision
petitioner created the forged documents and thereby committed fraud.
Challenging the enquiry, the complainant filed a writ petition before this
Court. The petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 157(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
3.The complainant in order to bring home the charges against the accused,
examined one Murugesan-P.W.1 and Sivasekaran as P.W.2 and filed Ex.P1.
4.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Judicial
Magistrate considered the submissions of the petitioner and he analysed the
materials on record and came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case
against the accused. So, he dismissed the complaint.
5.Challenging the dismissal order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Virudhunagar, the present Criminal Revision Case
has been filed by the complainant.
6.Point for Determination:
1.Whether the Revision is maintainable ?
POINT:
7.The complainant was working in Virudhunagar District Central Co-
operative Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and based
on the enquiry reqport he was dismissed from service. It is the case of the
revision petitioner that one Somasundaram was examined as a witness on behalf of
the Administration, who gave evidence before the enquiry officer that the
revision petitioner corrected the period in the fixed Deposit Receipts and
thereby gave a false report.
8.Therefore the Revision Petitioner filed a petition under Section 157(2)
of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Section 157(2) reads as
follows:
“157.Punishment for furnishing false information or disobeying summons or
other lawful order, requisition or direction:
1……
(2)Any officer, employe or a paid servant
or any member of the society who wilfully makes a false return or furnishes
false information, or any person who wilfully or without any reasonable excuse,
disobeys any summons, requisition or other lawful order, or direction issued
under the provisions of this Act, or who wilfully withholds or fails to furnish
any information lawfully required from him by a person authorised in this behalf
under the provisions of this act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees or with both.”
9.Relying on the above, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
vehemently contended that the said Soma Sundaram has committed an offence under
Section 157(2) of the Act and submitted that the Court has to take action under
Section 190 of Cr.P.C.
10.Section 164 the Act deals with cognizance of offence and as per sub
section 3 of Section 164 of the Act, no prosecution shall be instituted under
this Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar and such sanction shall
not be given without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to
represent his case. The learned counsel submitted that he made the
representation before the competent authority for sanction but, he could not
obtain the same. So, as on today, he has not obtained any sanction.
11.Further it is pointed out before the trial Court that as per Section 9
of the Act, the competent authority has to pass the sanction order within 120
days from the date of representation and it is submitted that the petitioner
filed the representation on 4.9.2004. Since the competent authority has not
passed any order on the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated
time, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be
presumed that the sanction has been accorded. But on perusal of the records,
the trial Court found that only the copy of the representation was available and
there was no acknowledgment that it was received by the competent authority.
Further the trial Court found that the petitioner has not given sufficient time
to the competent authority to pass any order on the representation and it was
found that there is a bar under Section 164(3) of the Act, to entertain the
complaint.
12.Further, I perused the materials available on record
carefully. Even Sivasekaran who was examined on the side of the
complainant/revision petitioner deposed against the petitioner. He stated that
Soma Sundaram did not give any false evidence before the enquiry officer. So,
this also goes against the stand of the petitioner.
13.Therefore, the learned trial Judge has meticulously considered the case
and came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie against the accused.
So, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has come to the
correct conclusion and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by
the learned trial Judge.
14.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming
the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar, in
Crl.M.P.No.4294 of 2005 dated 10.1.2006.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar.