{"id":187586,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-09-01T11:36:25","modified_gmt":"2017-09-01T06:06:25","slug":"k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:  16\/02\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD)No.1859 of 2002\n\nK.Thakkshinamurthy\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nvs\n\nState rep.by\n The Inspector of Police,\n SPE\/CBI\/ACB, Chennai\n (RC.No.20(A)\/99) \t\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Sections 374 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in\nC.C.No.2 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI\ncases, Madurai, peruse and set aside the judgment dated 27.12.2002 and thereby\nacquit the appellant.\n\n!For Appellant \t ... Mr.K.Thakshinamurthy\n\t\t     Party in Person\n^For Respondent\t ... Mr.S.Rozario Sundar Raj,\n\t\t     Special Public Prosecutor \t\t\t\n\t\t     (for CBI Cases)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe appellant herein is the accused in C.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the
\nPrincipal Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai and stands convicted for the
\noffence under Sections 467, 468, 467 r\/w 471, 420 and 201 (iii) IPC and for the
\noffence under Sections 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act and sentenced as follows:
\n\t“i)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/-, in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 467 of IPC\n<\/p>\n
\tii)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/-, in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 468 of IPC\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 467 r\/w 471 of IPC\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months for the offence under
\nSection 420 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence
\nunder Section 201 (iii) of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tvi)The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine
\nof Rs.7,00,000\/- (Rs.7 lakhs) in default to undergo RI for one year for the
\noffence under Section 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988″.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant herein has
\npreferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)The accused K.Thakkshinamurthy, joined in the State Bank of India at
\nArasaradi Branch as Branch Manager on 05.07.1996 on transfer from, Commercial
\nTax Office,  Madurai.  As a Branch Manager, he was the overall in charge of the
\nBranch and he was the Branch Manager till 06.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)P.W.5, Sridhar was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India,
\nM.Kallupatti Branch from 29.06.1995 to 12.08.1998.  On 30.10.1997, the accused
\nwent to P.W.5’s house and told him that he would come with a deposit for his
\nbranch on the next day.  Accordingly, the next day i.e 31.10.1997, the accused
\nmet P.W.5 at his residence and handed over a Arasaradi Branch Cheque bearing
\nNo.399037, dated 31.10.1997 for Rs.6,00,000\/- drawn by K.Raju (fictitious
\nperson) payable at State Bank of India, Arasaradi Branch. The accused told P.W.5
\nthat he would deposit in the name of K.Raju and P.W.5 told that deposits of huge
\namount in the name of one person will attract provision of income-tax. Then the
\naccused told him that three Term Deposit Receipts could be issued in the names
\nof K.Rajendran, K.Raju and K.Alagumayil for Rs.2,00,000\/- each. Accordingly, the
\ncheque was negotiated by P.W.5.  On receiving the cheque, P.W.5 gave the cheque
\nto his clerk P.W.6 and asked him to prepare three credit vouchers in the names
\nof three persons for Rs.2,00,000\/- each. When P.W.5 asked for account opening
\nforms, he told him that it would be given at a later date. The concerned pay in
\nslips and STDRs are placed by the prosecution Exs.P.16 to 21. Though P.W.5
\nwanted to meet the depositors in person, the accused was giving only evasive
\nreplies and he never gave the account opening forms.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)P.W.7, Ramachandran, who was the Assistant Accountant in the
\nM.Kallupatti Branch prepared Ex.P.11 payment advice on the strength of the
\ncheque and sent it to the State Bank of India, Arasaradi Branch, through courier
\nservice. The accused also acknowledged the payment advice Ex.P.11 and responded
\non 07.09.1997. The three STDRs in Exs.P.17, 19 and 21 were for a period of six
\nmonths and they all matured on 30.04.1998. On 04.05.1998 all the three STDRs
\nwere purchased by Arasaradi Branch vide Ex.P.22 for Rs.6,24,240\/-.  All the
\nthree STDRs were received by post by M.Kallupatti Branch on 06.05.1998.  The
\ntotal value of Rs.6,24,240\/- was credited to the current Account No.013693 which
\nwas in the name of K.Raju.  The said amount which was credited in the account of
\nK.Raju subsequently had been withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
\td)The cheque No.348180, dated 29.08.1998 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000\/-
\nbearing signature of K.Raju was passed by the accused. P.W.2, Murugesan
\nClerk\/Cashier paid a sum of Rs.1.20 lakhs to the accused K.Raju in cash and
\nRs.30,000\/- was adjusted for demand draft favouring State Bank of India
\nSupervising Staff Building Society Limited, Chennai. The balance amount of
\nRs.50,000\/- was adjusted for cash deposit voucher favouring the accused for his
\ncurrent account No.01090\/094699 and on the back side of the cheque, details are
\nmentioned.  Another cheque No.398060, dated 30.06.1997 for Rs.2,00,000\/- bearing
\nthe signature of K.Raju was also passed by the accused. Out of Rs.2,00,000\/-,
\nRs.40,000\/- was paid by P.W.2 to the accused in cash and the balance amount of
\nRs.1,60,000\/- was adjusted for cash deposit voucher for current
\nA\/c.No.01090\/040267 of R.Murugaperuman. The details have been mentioned at the
\nback side of the concerned cheque under Ex.P.6. Another cheque bearing
\nNo.398062, dated 03.07.1997 for Rs.5,00,000\/- bearing signature of K.Raju was
\npassed by the accused.  Out of the said amount, P.W.2 paid a cash amount of
\nRs.2,28,500\/- to the accused and the remaining amount of Rs.2,21,500\/- was
\nadjusted towards demand draft voucher favouring S.Chandra for which the
\napplicant was the accused. The cheque is Ex.P.8 and on the back side of Ex.P.8,
\nthe accused had acknowledged the receipt of the amount by putting his initial.\n<\/p>\n
\te)According to P.W.3, the Branch Manager, who took charge from 07.10.1998,
\nthe cheque No.399037, dated 31.10.1997 for Rs.6,00,000\/- was purchased by State
\nBank of India, M.Kallupatti Branch purchased on 31.10.1997 in TDR Nos.774770,
\n774771 and 774772 along with schedule of payment advice under Ex.P.11. In
\nEx.P.11, there is a noting that the cheque in question was paid on 07.11.1997 at
\nArasaradi Branch duly signed by the Branch Manager but in the current account of
\nK.Raju on 07.11.1997, there was no transaction at all. P.W.3 noticed the
\nirregularities about the three STDRs purchased by Arasaradi Branch on
\n04.05.1998, the total proceeds amount to Rs.6,24,240\/- was credited only in the
\ncurrent account of K.Raju. The amounts in the STDRs account of K.Alagumayil and
\nK.Rajendran were also credited to the current account of K.Raju which is highly
\nirregular. P.W.3 also made efforts to contact K.Raju, K.Alagumayil and
\nK.Rajendran with the addresses available in the branch. Though, he personally
\nwent to the address found, the addresses were bogus. None of these three persons
\nhave come for the operation of the transaction of the business after P.W.3 took
\ncharge of the branch and none of the staff members could also identify or
\nremember about K.Raju, K.Rajendran and K.Alagumayil. According to the staff
\nmembers, the account of K.Raju was operated only by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)P.W.4, Postman, attached to K.Pudur Post Office stated that in K.Pudur
\nManmalaimedu area there are three houses with Door No.50 and no person by name
\nK.Raju was residing at any of the houses bearing Door No.50 in Manmamalimedu
\narea in K.Pudur.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)P.W.9, who is the Manager of the Head Office at Chennai was instructed
\nby DGM, Vigilance to conduct an investigation regarding the fraud committed at
\nArasaradi Branch. As such, he conducted investigation and submitted a report to
\nhis superior on 28.11.2008. Ex.P.28 is the report.\n<\/p>\n
\th)P.W.10, who is the Inspector in SPE\/CBI\/ACB registered a case in
\nR.C.No.20(A)\/1999.  Ex.P.29 is the First Information Report and he took up
\ninvestigation and collected documents and also examined witnesses and obtained
\nspecimen signatures and handwritings from the accused for comparison.
\nThereafter, he sent those specimen signatures and handwritings along with the
\ndocuments in question to the Handwriting Expert P.W.8 for comparison and
\nopinion. Ex.P.27 is the opinion given by P.W.8.  P.W.10, after completing the
\ninvestigation by placing the papers to P.W.1, the General Manager of the State
\nBank of India, Chennai Circle, who is the competent authority to appoint,
\npromote and to remove the officers of Scale II in SBI obtained his sanction
\nunder Ex.P.2 and filed a final report on 29.12.1999 under Sections 420, 467,
\n468, 471 and 201 of IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
\nprosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to 29.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned trial Judge, with reference to the incriminating materials
\nadduced by the prosecution, questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
\nfor which, he pleaded innocence. No defence witness was examined but Exs.D-1 to
\nD-39 were marked during the cross examination of witnesses.  The accused also
\nfiled a petition for framing fresh charges as it was declined by the trial
\nCourt, the accused took up the matter to this High Court and an order was passed
\nto frame fresh charges.  Then, again fresh charges were framed and the accused
\nwas questioned and he denied all the charges.  The accused was permitted to
\ncross examine the witnesses further and as such, P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 to 10
\nwere recalled and they were cross examined by the accused and during such cross
\nexamination, Exs.D.40 to D-63 were marked by the defence.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The learned trial Judge, after assessing the materials placed and
\nconsidering the arguments advanced on either side, convicted and sentenced the
\naccused as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The appellant herein who is confined in prison appeared before this
\nCourt and submitted his arguments as a party-in-person. When this Court
\nspecifically questioned him whether he requires the assistance of any lawyer, he
\nsaid that he himself would argue the case since he was thorough with the facts
\nof this case and he would be in a better position in explaining the documents
\nbefore this Court.  The appellant apart from making his oral submissions also
\nfiled written arguments. Though there is no specific provision for filing
\nwritten arguments in the appeal this Court entertained the written submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned Special Public Prosecutor also was heard.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.This Court after hearing the arguments reserved the judgment and perused
\nall the records carefully.   Since this Court felt that any important point in
\nfavour of the accused which may disprove the prosecution case should not go
\nunnoticed.  Though this Court has taken into consideration the oral and written
\narguments of the appellant\/accused while perusing the records, the relevant
\narguments are now dealt with by this Court in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The appellant submitted that the main charge against the accused is that
\nhe purchased a bogus cheque bearing No.399037, dated 31.10.1997 for
\nRs.6,00,000\/- related to the current account of K.Raju to the Manager of the
\nState Bank of India, M.Kallupatti Branch and on the basis of the cheque obtained
\n3 STDRs each for a value of Rs.2,00,000\/-. But the cheque which is said to be
\nbogus has not been produced before the Court by the prosecution to establish
\nthat bogus cheque was prepared by the accused. The Investigating Officer has not
\neven seized the cheque and it cuts the root of the prosecution case. As per
\nExs.D-9 and 28 which are marked in another case in C.C.No.3 of 2000 against
\nwhich Crl.A.No.1860 of 2002 is also pending, to establish the fact that the
\ncheque book with the cheque leaves 3990262, 399050 was issued to the account
\nholder K.Raju.  Ex.P.11 which is marked by the prosecution as a payment advice
\nissued on 7.11.1997 is only an acknowledgement advice and it is not a payment
\nadvice as projected by the prosecution.  The three STDRs and pay in slips were
\nprepared by P.W.6 and for preparation of those STDRs when P.W.6 insisted his
\nManager P.W.5, Sridhar for filing account opening forms, he was instructed to do
\nas advised by the Manager. The names of K.Rajendran, K.Raju, and K.Alagumayil on
\nwhich the three STDRs stand, were furnished to P.W.6 by P.W.5. Therefore, the
\naccused is not liable for preparing Exs.P.16 to 21. The 3 STDRs for a total
\nvalue of Rs.6,24,240\/- were purchased at Arasaradi Branch on 04.05.1998.  But in
\nEx.P.22, the Demand Draft purchased schedule one Ulaganathan who was the
\nAssistant Manager of the Arasaradi Branch had signed in that. The said
\nUlaganathan has not been examined by the prosecution and the non examination of
\nthe said Ulaganathan leads to show that the prosecution has suppressed the
\nimportant facts. Exs.P.3, 6 and 8, the cheques which are used for withdrawal of
\nthe amount from the account of K.Raju are only xerox copies and original
\ninstruments have not been filed.  On the reverse side of Exs.P.3, 6 and 8 are
\ndone in the usual course for the genuineness of the signature and also for the
\nidentification of the payee. The claim of the prosecution that K.Raju is only a
\nfictitious person is false since the customer K.Raju had many transactions in
\nthe bank and Exs.D.15, 31, 35, 43 to 61 established that the customer K.Raju had
\nseveral transactions which were passed and handled by the officials other than
\nthe accused. Further, P.W.8 Handwriting Expert has not given any opinion for the
\nsignature of K.Raju found on the documents which were said to be forged by the
\naccused. If the account opening form of K.Raju has been produced by the
\nprosecution that would have established that K.Raju is not a fictitious person
\nand on the whole, the prosecution would become unacceptable and therefore, the
\nprosecution has deliberately suppressed the account opening form of K.Raju. The
\naccount opening form of K.Raju was very much available under the custody of
\nP.W.3 and Ex.D-42 and the account opening form was verified by the accused on
\n05.08.2000. The appellant further submitted that there is no evidence to show
\nthat the accused was personally benefited and the payments are made only to
\nK.Raju and he only signed in the relevant documents.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample
\noral and documentary evidence  against the accused to show that the account of
\nK.Raju was handled only by the accused and the said K.Raju never appeared before
\nthe bank or before any of the officials and all the transactions were made only
\nby the accused and all the bank officials acted as per the instruction of the
\naccused and believed the words of the accused as he was representing K.Raju. The
\nprosecution also has let in evidence through P.W.3 and P.W.4, Postman, the
\naddress of the account holder K.Raju is false and it is only a fictitious
\naccount created by the accused, only for the purpose of committing fraud. The
\ncheque bearing No.399037, dated 31.10.1997 could not be seized by the
\nInvestigating Officer and the accused was specifically charged for that under
\nSection 201 IPC and he has also been convicted by the trial Court under the said
\nspecific charge. According to the evidence given by the witness P.W.2, the
\nwithdrawal amounts were given only to the accused. The oral evidence given by
\nthe bank officials against the accused cannot be rejected since there was no
\nnecessity to them to depose falsely against the accused. The learned Special
\nPublic Prosecutor submitted that several cases were filed against the accused
\nfor committing bank fraud and the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.1 of 2000
\nhas been confirmed by this Court in C.A.No.1858 of 2002.   The accused is also
\nconvicted by the trial Court for possessing disproportionate assets and no mercy
\ncould be shown to the accused, even with regard to the sentenced imposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The main allegation against the accused is that the accused operated
\nthe account in the name of K.Raju fictitious person on 31.01.1997. The accused
\nproduced a forgery cheque before the Branch Manager of  M.Kallupatti and on the
\nbasis of the said cheque induced P.W.5 to issue three short term deposit
\nreceipts (STDRs) each for Rs.2,00,000\/- in the fictitious names of K.Raju,
\nK.Rajendran and K.Alagumayil. When the concerned cheque was sent to the
\nArasaradi Branch, the accused issued a fraudulent payment advice to the
\nM.Kallupatti Branch without debiting the amount in the relevant current account
\nof K.Raju. Subsequently, three STDRs were matured and the amount was credited to
\nthe current account in the name of K.Raju and subsequently, the entire amount
\nhad been withdrawn by the accused by using the cheques of K.Raju. It is also
\nalleged that the accused had caused disappearance of the concerned cheque
\nNo.399037, dated 31.10.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In support of the above allegation against the accused, the oral
\nevidence available against the accused is to be seen first.  P.W.5, who is the
\nBranch Manager of M.Kallupatti Branch had deposed that the accused met at his
\nresidence on 31.01.1997 and gave concerned cheque for Rs.6,00,000\/- drawn by
\nK.Raju payable at State Bank of India, Arasaradi Branch, the accused wanted
\nthree STDRs in the names of K.Raju, K.Rajendran and K.Alagumayil for
\nRs.2,00,000\/- each. Though P.W.5 wanted to meet the depositors, the accused was
\ngiving only evasive replies without showing the depositors. Without account
\nopening forms and without specimen signature card and without introducer, the
\naccounts were opened and STDRs were issued by P.W.5 only at the request of the
\naccused.  It was contended by the appellant that the three STDRs were prepared
\nby P.W.6 as per the direction of P.W.5 and P.W.6 has not implicated the accused
\nand as such, P.W.5 alone is responsible. This argument will not negative the
\nevidence given by P.W.5 since the cheque which was received by P.W.5 from the
\naccused was sent to the Arasaradi Branch for realisation through professional
\ncourier vide Ex.P.13 and the acknowledgement for delivery of that cover was
\nreceived vide Ex.P.14. P.W.5 received Ex.P.11 payment advice cum
\nacknowledgement, dated 07.11.1997 which was duly signed by the accused. If the
\naccused had no part to play, he need not have signed in Ex.P.11. According to
\nthe accused Ex.P.11 is not the payment advice and it is only an acknowledgement.
\nOn perusal of Ex.P.11, it is mentioned that ‘demand drafts (cheques on branch)
\npurchased payment return advice’. Whether Ex.P.11 is payment return advice or it
\nis an acknowledgement, the fact remains that it has been signed by the accused
\nbut the amount of Rs.6,00,000\/- was not debited from the current account of
\nK.Raju. In the said circumstance, being the oral evidence given by P.W.5 that it
\nwas only the accused who personally presented the cheque to P.W.5.  P.W.5, also
\ndenied the suggestion of the accused that he never came and instructed P.W.5.
\nThis Court does not find any reason to reject the oral evidence given by P.W.5.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.After three STDRs have matured, they were purchased at Arasaradi Branch
\nand the proceeds amounting to  Rs.6,24,240\/- was credited to the current account
\nof K.Raju.  It is the evidence of P.W.3, the Branch Manager of Arasaradi Branch,
\nState Bank of India, who took charge from 07.10.1998 had stated that the amounts
\nin STDRs accounts of Shri.K.Alagumayil and Shri.K.Rajendran were credited to
\nShri.K.Raju’s current account which is highly irregular because STDR is merely a
\nreceipt and is not a negotiable instrument.  He further deposed that even if the
\ncustomer insists that the proceeds of term deposit to be transferred to third
\nparty bank should not do because of the non transferable nature of the receipt.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.It is submitted by the appellant that in Ex.P.22 only Ulaganathan,
\nAssistant Manager had signed in that and he only is responsible for purchasing
\nthe three STDRs and to credit the proceeds in the K.Raju’s current account. The
\nsaid Ulaganathan also has not been examined by the prosecution. Of course, the
\nprosecution should have examined Ulaganathan who has signed in Ex.P.22. Still
\nthe fact remains that the proceeds of all the three STDRs were deposited only to
\nthe current account of K.Raju. Therefore, the question is whether the amount
\ndeposited in the K.Raju’s current account was withdrawn by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Three cheques signed by K.Raju were used for withdrawing the said
\namount. The evidence of P.W.2, Cashier is that the cheques were passed by the
\naccused. The amounts were given not to the customer but only to the accused.  It
\nis the evidence of P.W.2 that normally, the amounts were given across the
\ncounter but the accused insisted him to give the amount to him saying that
\nvaluable customer do not come to the bank and the bank is to serve at the door
\nsteps of such customer. P.W.2 also stated that he had not seen K.Raju at any
\npoint of time during his tenure at Arasaradi Branch. As per the oral evidence of
\nP.W.2, it was only the accused who acted on behalf of K.Raju and withdrawn the
\namounts from the account of K.Raju.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 leads to show that the accused had
\nacted on behalf of K.Raju, the account holder.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Now it is to be further seen whether any documentary evidence is
\navailable against the accused. P.W.3, Branch Manager, State Bank of India had
\nstated that the cheque for concerned cheque for Rs.6,00,000\/- was sent from
\nM.Kallupatti Branch to Arasaradi Branch. In Ex.P.11 there is a noting that
\ncheque in question was paid on 07.11.1997 at Arasaradi Branch duly signed by the
\nBranch Manager. But as per the ledger extract of current account of K.Raju,
\nEx.P.15 on 07.11.1997 there was no transaction at all and the amount of
\nRs.6,00,000\/- was not debited from the account of K.Raju. Ex.P.11, is an
\nimportant document which stands against the accused and if the accused acted
\nbonafide, he could not have acknowledged Ex.P.11.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Further, the proceeds of 3 STDRs, were deposited in the account of
\nK.Raju and the amounts were withdrawn through three cheques signed by K.Raju. As
\nalready stated, P.W.2, Cashier has given evidence that the cheques were
\npresented after being passed by the accused himself and the amounts were
\nwithdrawn by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Honouring the cheque No.348180, dated 29.08.1998 for Rs.2,00,000\/-,  a
\nsum of Rs.1,20,000\/- was paid to the accused in cash and a sum of Rs.30,000\/-
\nwas adjusted for demand draft favouring State Bank of India Supervising Staff
\nBuilding Society Limited, Chennai. The balance amount of Rs.50,000\/- was
\nadjusted for cash deposit voucher favouring the accused for his current account
\nNo.01090\/094699 and these details are mentioned on the reverse side of the
\ncheque\/Ex.P.3. The demand Draft application which was made by the accused for
\nRs.30,000\/- is Ex.P.4. The cash voucher for depositing Rs.50,000\/- is Ex.P.5.
\nThe documents Exs.P.4 and 5 are not denied by the accused and they could not be
\ndenied also. As per Ex.P.4, the application was made by the accused himself for
\ngetting a demand draft for Rs.30,000\/-. For the said amount of Rs.30,000\/-, the
\naccused did not pay any cash. Similarly, for depositing a sum of RS.50,000\/- in
\nthe account of the accused, the accused had not paid any cash. As both the
\namounts in Exs.P.4 and 5 were adjusted from the amount of Ex.P.3, which was said
\nto be given to the K.Raju, Exs.P.4 and 5 are clinching documentary materials
\navailable against the accused which undoubtedly prove that the cheque amount was
\nnot given to the account holder K.Raju and the amounts were adjusted only in
\nfavour of the accused.  In such a case, the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000\/-
\ncash was given to the accused also should be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.Similarly, another cheque No.398060, dated 30.06.1997 for Rs.2,00,000\/-
\nbearing the signature of K.Raju was also passed by the accused. Out of
\nRs.2,00,000\/-, Rs.40,000\/- was paid by P.W.2 to the accused in cash and the
\nbalance amount of Rs.1,60,000\/- was adjusted for cash deposit voucher for
\ncurrent A\/c.No.01090\/040267 of R.Murugaperumal. The details have been mentioned
\nat the back side of the concerned cheque under Ex.P.6.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.In yet another cheque bearing No.398062, dated 03.07.1997 for
\nRs.5,00,000\/- bearing the signature of K.Raju was passed by the accused. Out of
\nthe said amount, P.W.2, paid a cash amount of Rs.2,28,500\/- to the accused and
\nthe remaining amount of Rs.2,21,500\/- was adjusted towards demand draft voucher
\nfavouring one S.Chandra. The cheque is Ex.P.8 and on the back side of Ex.P.8,
\nthe accused had acknowledged the receipt of the amount by putting his initial.
\nEx.P.9 is the demand draft voucher for getting the demand draft in the name of
\nS.Chandra. The accused had also signed the Ex.P.9. Ex.P.10 is the another
\nadjustment voucher for a sum of Rs.50,000\/- favouring Sri.Raji
\nVenkatasubramaniam.  The signature of the accused in Ex.P.9 has not been denied
\nand it is also admitted by the accused that for getting draft in the name of
\nS.Chandra, cash was not paid by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.P.W.2 also noted all these adjustments on the reverse side of the
\ncheques Exs.P.9 and 10 which are also clinching documentary evidence against the
\naccused showing that the amounts of the cheque in respect of K.Raju was received
\nonly by the accused  and Exs.P.9 and 10 were also signed by the accused.
\nTherefore, the documents Exs.P.3 to 10 prove that the accused was beneficiary.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In view of the above said documentary evidence, this Court has no
\nhesitation for coming to the conclusion that the accused has operated the
\naccount of K.Raju and he had acted on behalf of K.Raju, account holder and it
\nwas only he who produced the cheques on behalf of the K.Raju and it was he who
\nhad withdrawn the amount on behalf of K.Raju.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.Of course, it is contended by the appellant that K.Raju is not a
\nfictitious person and there are several accounts in his name and the signature
\nof K.Raju is not put by the accused and handwriting expert also has not given
\nopinion that K.Raju signature was put by the accused. It is the evidence of
\nP.W.3 that the address given by K.Raju in the account, was bogus, on
\nverification, the address found to be false in support of that postman also
\nexamined as P.W.4. This Court also on perusing the documents finds that the
\nsignature of K.Raju appears to be signed by one and the same person. Somebody
\nsigned in the name of K.Raju in all the documents and somebody acted as K.Raju.
\nBut the said person K.Raju had never come before the bank officials and no one
\nhad seen the named person K.Raju.  Of course, it is contended by the appellant
\nthat he K.Raju, the account holder is existing but the accused is unable to
\nstate the identity of the said person K.Raju and he is unable to establish the
\nsaid fact. According to the accused, the account opening form of K.Raju has been
\nsuppressed by the prosecution. It appears that some of the vital documents
\nincluding the concerned cheque in this case  not available to the Investigating
\nOfficer.  Though the accused claims that he had seen the account opening form
\nwhile perusing the records, now admittedly the account opening form has not been
\nproduced before this Court. This Court does not want to go into the question,
\nfor disappearance of the cheque and also for the account opening form, whether
\nthe accused is responsible or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.The non production of the account opening form of K.Raju does not
\naffect the prosecution case in view of the fact that the other ample evidence
\nbeing available against the accused. Admittedly, the accused had seen the
\naccount holder K.Raju and according to the accused K.Raju is a valuable customer
\nbut the accused is unable to give any particulars regarding K.Raju. May be that
\none person in order to help the accused could have signed as K.Raju, in all the
\ndocuments, though the accused had not personally used his handwriting,  but
\nthose forged documents have been used by the accused to commit the fraud.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the
\naccused could not be convicted directly for committing the offence of forgery.
\nBut the conviction for using the forged documents could be confirmed. This
\nconviction for committing the offence for cheating also could be confirmed.
\nBeing public servant, the offence committed by the accused under the provisions
\nof Prevention of Corruption Act also to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.Though the Cheque No.399037, dated 31.10.1997 is missing and not
\navailable to the prosecution agency, there is no material directly to show that
\nit was only the accused who was responsible for causing disappearance of the
\nsaid important document. As stated by the appellant that though the account
\nopening form of K.Raju had been seen by the accused at the time of inspection,
\nnot produced by the prosecution and the prosecution is not able to explain
\nwhether those documents are available or disappeared  and in such condition, the
\naccused cannot be held liable under Section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance
\nof the said cheque.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for
\nthe offences under Sections 467, 468 IPC and 201 IPC are set aside. The
\nconviction imposed on the accused for the offences under Sections 467 read with
\n471 and 420 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct  are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.With regard to the sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences
\nunder Sections 467 read with 471 IPC and 420 IPC, they are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.With regard to the sentence for the offence under Section 13 (2) read
\nwith 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sentence of five years RI
\nconfirmed. But the sentence of fine amount of Rs.7,00,000\/- is set aside and
\ninstead, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- only and in default to
\nundergo RI for six months.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.The modification with regard to the fine amount is made by this Court
\nsince it was represented by the appellant\/accused that already he is in jail for
\nmore than five years, and he has no money to pay the fine amount since all his
\nproperties have already been attached in the proceedings taken against him for
\nthe disproportionate assets. Only on the said circumstance, this Court felt to
\nmodify the fine amount imposed on the accused. Consequently, the order passed by
\nthe trial Court that from out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.6,00,000\/- to be
\npaid as compensation to the branch is also set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the appellant that the
\njudgment in C.C.No.1 of 2000,  C.C.No.2 of 2000-(against which this appeal is
\npreferred) and C.C.No.3 of 2000 were pronounced on the same day i.e. on
\n27.12.2002. But the trial Court has not directed the sentence of imprisonment to
\nrun concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed in C.C.No.1 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.Section 427 Cr.P.C is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced
\non a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such
\nimprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the
\nimprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs
\nthat the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
\n\tProvided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an
\norder under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing
\nsuch sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the
\nmaking of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\t2)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is
\nsentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment
\nfor life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous
\nsentence”.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is
\nsentenced on a subsequent conviction to such imprisonment, shall commence at the
\nexpiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless
\nthe Court directs that the subsequent sentence, shall run concurrently with such
\nprevious sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.The accused\/appellant was sentenced in three cases on the same day one
\nafter the other and in such circumstance, the Court was competent to exercise
\nthe discretion in directing the subsequent sentence (in the case decided
\nsubsequently) that the sentence shall run concurrently with the earlier sentence
\nin the case earlier decided.\tIn the present case, the learned Judge had not
\nexercised his discretion.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.Of course, the learned Special Public Prosecutor had also submitted
\nthat no leniency should be shown to the appellant\/accused and the sentence
\nshould not be made to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.It is observed by the Bombay High Court in  Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Vs.
\nState of Maharashtra (1993 Crl.L.J 1469) as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“6.We must notice that the learned Public Prosecutor for the State had
\ncontended that Section 427 Cr.P.C is not attracted in the instant matter because
\nthe petitioner was not “undergoing a sentence of imprisonment” as contemplated
\nunder that provision, when subsequent sentenced was awarded. According to him,
\nunless the offender is physically in jail to suffer the sentence of imprisonment
\nat the time of subsequent sentence, Section 427(1) cannot be pressed into
\nservice. In our view, such an approach to the provision would not be object
\noriented.  Normal principle is that sentences should take effect immediately on
\nconviction. Criminal Procedure Code provides that where several sentences are
\npassed, such sentences should run one after the other i.e. consecutively unless
\nthe Court directs otherwise i.e. concurrently. A person sentenced to
\nimprisonment must, for the purpose of Section 427, be deemed to be undergoing
\nthat sentence from the very moment the sentence is passed. The accused may be on
\nbail or in custody in the earlier case at the time of passing of the subsequent
\nsentence. There cannot be legislative intention to deny the benefit of the
\nprovision even in a deserving case by virtue of the only fact that the convict
\nis on bail or in custody or could not be taken within the portals of prison for
\nsome genuine reason. Literal construction on the terminology “undergoing a
\nsentence of imprisonment” as suggested on behalf of the State would lead to
\nabsurd results specially where two separate sentences are awarded one after the
\nother on one day in two different trials. Either the learned Judge would not
\nexercise the discretion only because in the earlier case he had not gone inside
\nthe jail by that time or he will have to actually send the convict inside the
\njail for some time, and call him back immediately to pronounce judgment in the
\nsecond case. We do not think such absurd and farcical situation was intended by
\nthe legislature”.\n<\/p>\n
\t38.This Court now wants to exercise its power under Section 427 Cr.P.C and
\naccordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed in C.C.No.2 of 2000 on the
\nfile of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, which are confirmed
\nby this Court is directed to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment
\nimposed on the accused by the same Judge in C.C.No.1 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t39.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal Special Judge
\n  for CBI cases, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16\/02\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Criminal Appeal (MD)No.1859 of 2002 K.Thakkshinamurthy .. Appellant vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, SPE\/CBI\/ACB, Chennai (RC.No.20(A)\/99) .. Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Sections 374 Cr.P.C., to call […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-01T06:06:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-01T06:06:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":6024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\",\"name\":\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-01T06:06:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-01T06:06:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-01T06:06:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2"},"wordCount":6024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2","name":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-01T06:06:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thakkshinamurthy-vs-state-rep-by-on-16-february-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Thakkshinamurthy vs State Rep.By on 16 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}