{"id":244828,"date":"2009-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-20T00:19:51","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T18:49:51","slug":"a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A.No.637 of 1997\n&\nCrl.A.No.645 of 1997\n\n1.A.Murali\t\t\t. . . Appellant in\n  \t\t\t\t      Crl.A.No.637\/1997\n\t\t\t\t      \/4th  accused\n1.S.N.Murugesan\n\n2.S.N.Nagarajan\n\n3.S.Kanagaraj\t\t\t. . . Appellants in\n\t\t\t\t      Crl.A.No.645\/1997\n\t\t\t\t      \/Accused 1 to 3\nVs.\n\nState represented by\nthe Inspector of Police,\nSPE CBI, Madras.\n(R.C.No.65(A)\/90)\t\t. . . Respondent in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t      both the appeal
\n\t\t\t\t       \/Complainant<\/p>\n
 \t Criminal appeals are filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., against the
\njudgment dated 19.08.1997 passed in Calendar Case No.2 of 1995 by the Special
\nCourt for CBI cases, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
!For appellant in
\nCrl.A.No.637\/1997  … Mrs.Gita Asokan
\nFor appellants in
\nCrl.A.No.645\/1997  … Mr.Chandrasekaran
\n^For respondent in
\nboth the appeal    … Mr.S.Rozario Sundarraj,
\n\t\t\tSpl. Public Prosecutor,
\n\t\t\t(for CBI cases)
\n:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in this criminal appeals is to the conviction and sentence
\npassed in Calendar Case No.2 of 1995 by the Special Court for CBI cases,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The nubble of the prosecution case is that the first accused viz.,
\nMurugesan has acted as an agent of National Insurance Company Limited during the
\nyears 1988-1990 and the second accused viz., Nagarajan is his brother and the
\nthird and fourth accused viz., Dr.S.Kanagaraj and Dr.A.Murali have acted as
\nVeterinary Doctors, attached to the said Insurance Company and all the accused
\nhave   conspired together so as to make false           post-mortem certificates
\nas if the cattle of  Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran,
\nParaman, Muthappan and Nagarajan have expired.  In pursuance of their
\nconspiracy, the first accused has made false claims to the tune of Rs.39,550\/-.
\nThe third accused has given false post-mortem certificates. The fourth accused
\nhas also given false post-mortem certificates. Under the said circumstances, the
\naccused 1 to 4 are said to have committed offence under Section 120-B of the
\nIndian Penal Code, the first accused is said to have committed offence under
\nSections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the third accused is said to have
\ncommitted offence under Sections 468, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the
\nfourth accused is said to have committed offence under Sections 468, 468 & 471
\nof the Indian Penal Code, the first accused is also said to have committed
\noffences under Sections 468, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the second
\naccused is said to have committed offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with
\n13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The investigating agency has conducted investigation and after
\ncompleting the same, laid a final report on the file of the trial Court.  The
\ntrial Court, after pondering the alleged culpability of the accused, has framed
\nfirst charge against the accused 1 to 4 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
\nCode, second charge against the first accused under Section 420 of the Indian
\nPenal Code, third charge against the third accused under Section 420 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, fourth charge against the third accused under Sections 468 &
\n471 of the Indian Penal Code, fifth charge against the fourth accused under
\nSection 468 of the Indian Penal Code, sixth charge against the fourth accused
\nunder Section 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, seventh charge against the
\nfirst accused under Section 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and eighth charge
\nagainst the second accused under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same have been read over and
\nexplained to    them and all the accused  have  rejected  the  respective
\ncharges framed against them and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P36 have been marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstance appearing in
\nevidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crimes.  No oral
\nevidence has been adduced on the side of the accused.  However, Ex.D1 has been
\nmarked on the side of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The trial Court, after pondering the evidence available on record, has
\nfound the accused 1 to 4 guilty under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
\nimposed a fine of Rs.100\/- upon each of them with default clause.  The first
\naccused has been found guilty under Section 420 (3 counts) of the Indian Penal
\nCode and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a
\nfine of Rs.5,000\/- upon each count with default clause.  He has also been found
\nguilty under Sections 468 & 471(3 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
\nto undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500\/-
\nupon each count with default clause. The second accused has been found guilty
\nunder Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year
\nrigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with default clause.
\nThe third accused has been found guilty under Section 468 (1 count) of the
\nIndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and
\nalso imposed a fine of Rs.500\/- with default clause.  He has also been found
\nguilty under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also
\nimposed a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with default clause.  The fourth accused has been
\nfound guilty under Section 468(2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
\nto undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500\/-
\nupon each count with default clause.  He has also been found guilty under
\nSection 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
\nsentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of
\nRs.10,000\/- with default clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\naccused 1 to 3 have filed Criminal Appeal No.645 of 1997 and the fourth accused
\nhas filed Criminal Appeal No.637 of 1997 on the file of this Court as
\nappellants.  Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the
\nappeals, common judgment is pronounced.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that all the
\naccused have entered into conspiracy so as to cheat the National Insurance
\nLimited during the period of 1988-1990 and in pursuance of their conspiracy,
\nthey created false post-mortem certificates as if cattle of the persons namely
\nMurugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran, Paraman, Muthappan and
\nNagarajan have passed away and subsequently, the first accused has received a
\nsum of Rs.39,550\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The trial Court has framed as many as eight charges against the accused
\nand they have made  candid denial.  Since the accused have made candid denial
\nwith regard to the respective charges framed against them, it is for the
\nprosecution to prove each and every charge to the satisfaction of the Court.
\nThe main charges framed against the accused are under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the provision of
\nthe following relevant Sections;\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows;
\n\t“Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats
\nand thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to
\nany person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
\nsecurity, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
\nconverted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
\neither description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
\nliable to fine.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows;
\n\t“Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that
\nthe document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of
\ncheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which
\nmay extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows;
\n\t“Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.- Whoever
\nfraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record
\nwhich he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic
\nrecord, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document
\nor electronic record.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.One Rajendran has been examined as PW1.  He has stated in his evidence
\nthat after perusing all the relevant records, he has given sanction order so as
\nto launch the prosecution against the accused 3 & 4 and the same have been
\nmarked as Exs.P1 & P2.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The Claim Manager of National Insurance Company Limited viz.,
\nSelvarajan has been examined as PW3. He has stated in his evidence about the
\nprocedure for appointment of an agent and the procedure for insuring an animal.
\nFurther he has stated that insurance can be made only after ascertaining the
\ngiven particulars are genuine and further he has deposed the relevant procedure
\nof getting compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The then Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company Limited
\nviz., S.Srinivasan has been examined as PW4. He has stated in his evidence that
\non 24.02.1989 one Assistant Branch Manager by name Komathinayagam has appointed
\nthe first accused as an agent of the National Insurance Company Limited and the
\nappointment order has been marked as Ex.P5.  Further he speaks about the claims
\nmade in the names of Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan, Rajendran,
\nParaman, Muthappan and Nagarajan and the Insurance Policies, Claim Forms and
\nDisbursement Order have been respectively marked as Exs.P6 to P13.  Further he
\nhas stated in his evidence that only after ascertaining the given particulars
\nare genuine, disbursements of money have been made due to death of cattle.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the present case, the prosecution has been launched only on the
\nbasis of the role alleged to have been played by one Sundaram, who has been
\nexamined as PW2 on the side of the prosecution.  He would say in his evidence
\nthat he is a septuagenarian and a freedom fighter and he knows Rajendran who has
\nbeen examined as PW5 and in the year 1989, he met him and told that he received
\na cheque from National Insurance Company Limited as if his cow has expired.
\nFurther he stated that he has no connection whatsoever with the cheque of the
\nNational Insurance Company Limited.  On the basis of his representation, he
\n(PW2) has written a post-card to the National Insurance Company Limited and the
\nsame has been marked as Ex.P3 and subsequently he has given a complaint which
\nhas been marked as Ex.P4.  During the course of cross-examination, he would say
\nin his evidence that a strong motive has been in existence between the said
\nRajendran and first accused, and after knowing the fact that the said Rajendran
\nhas acted with oblique and sinister motive, he has given a letter (Ex.P4) to the
\nNational Insurance Company Limited to the effect not to take action on the basis
\nof his complaint. Even though PW2 has requested the National Insurance Company
\nLimited not to take any action on the basis of his complaint, the prosecution
\nhas conducted investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report
\non the file of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/accused have advanced
\ntheir identical arguments to the effect that in the instance case, the first
\naccused has acted as an agent of National Insurance Company Limited and only on
\nthe basis of death of some animals which have been insured with the National
\nInsurance Company Limited, compensations have been claimed and the same have
\nbeen given to the claimants and PW5 viz., Rajendran has had strong motive
\nagainst the first accused and in order to entangle him in problems, he has given
\na false complaint against all the accused and the accused 3 & 4 have genuinely
\nconducted post-mortem and given necessary post-mortem certificates and the
\nInsurance Officials, after knowing its genuineness, have ordered compensation
\nand further the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against all
\nthe accused by way of examining relevant witnesses and the trial Court without
\nconsidering the infirmities found on the side of the prosecution, has
\nerroneously invited the conviction and sentence and therefore, the same are
\nliable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, has
\nalso vehemently contended that in the instant case, Exs.P6 to P13 have clearly
\nspoken about the offences alleged to have been committed by all the accused and
\nthe trial Court, after contemplating all the evidence available on record, has
\nrightly convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment under each Section
\nmentioned in the charges and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by
\nthe trial Court are perfectly correct and the same need no interference.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.It has already been pointed out that PW3 viz., Selvarajan has clearly
\nspoken about the procedure for insuring an animal and also procedure for giving
\ncompensation.  The sum and substance of the evidence given by PW3 is that only
\nafter knowing the existence of a particular animal, the same will be insured and
\nalso after knowing fully well about the death of an animal, compensation will be
\ngiven.  PW4 viz., Srinivasan has also given equal evidence to the effect that
\nonly after knowing the claims made in Exs.P6 to P13 are genuine, disbursement of
\namounts have been taken place.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.In fact, it is not the case of the prosecution that without existence
\nof animals in question, respective insurance claims have been made.  The
\nspecific case of the prosecution is that all the accused in order to enrich
\nthemselves have entered into conspiracy to create fake post-mortem certificates
\nin respect of animals belonged to Murugan, Marimuthu, Ramasamy, Mookaiyan,
\nRajendran, Paraman, Muthappan and Nagarajan.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Ex.P6 is related to Mookaiyan (PW14) and the concerned post-mortem
\ncertificate has been given by the fourth accused and the compensation amount has
\nbeen received by the first accused. Ex.P7 is related to Muthappan (PW13) and the
\nconcerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the third accused and claim
\namount has been received by the second accused. Ex.P8 is related to Marimuthu
\n(PW7) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the third
\naccused and the claim amount has been received by the first accused.  Ex.P9 is
\nrelated to Murugan (PW6) and the concern post-mortem certificate has been given
\nby the third accused and the claim amount has been received by the first
\naccused.  Ex.P10 related to Ramasamy (PW8) and the concerned post-mortem
\ncertificate has been given by the third accused and the claim amount has been
\nreceived by the first accused.  Ex.P11 is related to Nagarajan (A-2) and the
\nconcerned post-mortem certificate has been given by the fourth accused and the
\nclaim amount has been received by the first accused.  Ex.P12 is related to
\nR.Paraman and the concerned Post-mortem certificate has been given by the fourth
\naccused  and the claim amount has been received by the first accused.  Ex.P13 is
\nrelated to Rajendaran (PW5) and the concerned post-mortem certificate has been
\ngiven to the fourth accused and the claim amount has been received by the first
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The trial Court has invited the conviction and sentence on the basis of
\nExs.P6 to P13.  Now the Court has to perpend as to whether the conviction and
\nsentence can be invited against the accused on the basis of Exs.P6 to P13.  The
\nclaimant in Ex.P6 has been examined PW14. He would say in his evidence that he
\nowned goats and the same have been insured.  Since he has not supported the
\nversion of the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile witness.  Therefore,
\nit is quite clear that Ex.P6 is of no use  so as to prove the case of the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.The claimant in Ex.P7 viz., Muthappan has been examined as PW13.  He
\nwould say in his evidence that he has not owned any cattle. During the course of
\ncross-examination, he would say that the first accused has acted as a treasurer
\nin Milk Society and in the said milk society, he run a tea stall and further he
\nwould say in his evidence that in Ex.P22 it is stated that the father name of
\nthe claimant is Ramasamy Counder and he has no connection to it.  It is not the
\nevidence of PW13 that he owned a cattle and  the same has been insured and a
\nfalse insurance claim has been made. Therefore, the evidence of PW13 is also of
\nno use so as to prove the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The claimant in Ex.P8 viz., Marimuthu has been examined as PW7.  He has
\nstated in his evidence that he owned a buffalo and the same has passed away and
\nhe claimed compensation and compensation amount belongs to him.  From the
\nevidence of PW7, it is quite clear that the claim made in respect of death of
\nhis cattle is genuine.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.The claimant in Ex.P9 viz., Murugan has been examined as PW6.  He would
\nsay in his evidence that he has not owned any cattle and he has also not claimed
\nany compensation.  It is not the evidence of PW6 that he owned an animal and the
\nsame has been insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the same
\nhas not passed away.  Therefore, the evidence of PW6 has also not at all lent
\nsupport to the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.At this juncture, the following aspects must be noted down.  From the
\nevidence of PW6, the Court can easily discern that father name of PW6 is
\nVasakar.  But, from the close reading of Ex.P9 would  reveal that the father
\nname of Murugan mentioned in Ex.P9 is Vellaiyappan.   Therefore, PW6 is an utter
\nstranger and he has no connection whatsoever with Ex.P9. But, the prosecution
\nhas examined PW6 for the reasons best known to it.  The attempt made by the
\nprosecution is highly deplorable and also condemnable.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.The claimant in Ex.P10 viz., Ramasamy has been examined as PW8.  He has
\nalso stated in his evidence that he insured four buffaloes in the National
\nInsurance Company Limited and one has passed away and subsequently he claimed
\ncompensation and therefore, the evidence of PW8 is totally contra to the
\ncontention urged on the side of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.The claimant in Ex.P11 viz., N.Nagarajan and the claimant in Ex.P12
\nviz., R.Paraman have not been examined on the side of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.The claimant in Ex.P13, S.Rajendaran has been examined as PW5.  He
\nwould say in his evidence that the signature found in Ex.P13 is not his
\nsignature and he has not owned cattle at any point of time and the second
\naccused has met him and directed him to handover if any letter received by him
\nfrom the Insurance Company and the first accused has given one cheque and the
\nsame has been put in his account and further he would say in his evidence that
\nthe amount found in the cheque which has been given in his name has been
\ncredited in his account and he has not withdrawn the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.The trial Court has believed the evidence of PW5.  At this juncture, it
\nwould be more useful to look into the entire evidence adduced by PW5. In fact,
\nthis Court has closely perused the entire evidence adduced by him and during the
\ncourse of cross-examination he would say that the accused 1 & 2 are his
\nbrothers-in-law. He married one Uthayarani who is the daughter of Sennappa
\nCounder, senior paternal uncle of the accused 1 & 2 and their marriage has been
\nheld in the year 1980 and subsequently he divorced her and conducted second
\nmarriage and his mother has been murdered and a criminal case is pending against
\nhis wife Uthayarani and others.  The said Uthayarani has also instituted a
\ncriminal case against him, his father and brother.  The accused 1 & 2 are
\nlending their support to the said Uthayarani and due to that a despair is in
\nexistence between him and the accused 1 & 2.  Therefore, from the evidence of
\nPW5, the Court can easily learn that PW5 is having strong enmity  against the
\naccused 1 & 2.  If really PW5 has not at all insured his cattle, if really the
\nsame has not passed away, definitely, he would not have accepted the cheque
\ngiven in respect of the claim alleged to have been made by him.  Therefore, the
\nevidence of PW5 cannot be believed in.  Further PW2 has stated in his evidence
\nthat PW5 has reported that he received a cheque from the National Insurance
\nCompany Limited and the same has been given on false claim and on the basis of
\nhis representation, he (PW2) has given a complaint and subsequently after
\nknowing the evil design of PW5, he (PW2) has sent another  requisition to the
\nNational Insurance Company Limited to the effect not to take action on the basis
\nof his complaint.  Therefore, it is quite clear that PW5 is the harbinger to
\ninitiate present criminal proceedings against all the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.The trial Court has come to the conclusion that some of the post-mortem
\ncertificates alleged to have been issued by the accused 3 & 4 are not genuine.
\nIn fact, this Court has closely perused all the post-mortem certificates issued
\nby the accused 3 & 4. Except some flimsy mistake, no stupendous mistakes are
\nfound in the post-mortem certificates issued by the accused 3 & 4.  Even at the
\nrisk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that it is not the
\ncase of the prosecution that the animals, which are not in existence, have been
\ninsured with the National Insurance Company Limited.  The specific case of the
\nprosecution is that the accused 1 to 4 have conspired together so as to enrich
\nthemselves and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they created fake post-mortem
\ncertificates as if the animals of the persons mentioned have expired.  In fact,
\nthis Court has discussed Exs.P6 to P13 in detail and found that some of the
\nclaimants have admitted their claims and some of the claimants have not at all
\nbeen examined on the side of the prosecution.  Therefore, on the basis of some
\nflimsy mistakes found in some post-mortem certificates, the Court cannot come to
\na conclusion that the accused have committed offences mentioned in the charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.It has already been pointed out that PW3 viz., Selvarajan has clearly
\nspoken about the requisite procedure for making insurance of a particular animal
\nand further he has stated in his evidence about the procedure to be adopted for
\ngiving compensation and only after ascertaining the claim as genuine,
\ncompensation would be given.  Further he would say in his evidence that if there
\nis no doubt in the claim, the same would be sanctioned. PW4, Srinivasan would
\nsay that only after ascertaining the claims made in Exs.P6 to P13 are genuine,
\ncompensation amounts have been disbursed.  From the evidence of PWs.3 & 4, the
\nCourt can easily come to a conclusion that the claims made in the present case
\nare genuine.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.The trial Court as adverted to earlier has invited its conviction and
\nsentence mainly on the basis of the evidence given by PW5 viz., Rajendran and
\nalso some flimsy mistakes found in some post-mortem certificates.  It has
\nalready been pointed out that some of the claimants have not at all supported
\nthe version of the prosecution and some of them have not been examined on the
\nside of the prosecution.  Further PW6 has had no connection whatsoever with
\nEx.P9 and the prosecution has examined him for the reasons best known to it.
\nTherefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has not adduced trustworthy
\nand also adminicle evidence in the present case so as to mulct the accused with
\npunishments. The trial Court has invited the conviction and sentence only on the
\nbasis of fiction, surmise and conjecture. It is an everlasting principle of law
\nthat in a criminal case unless adminicle, cogent and trustworthy evidence are
\navailable,  it is highly impossible on the part of the Court to invite
\nconviction and sentence against the accused concerned. Further conviction and
\nsentence cannot be invited on the basis of mere presumption, surmise and
\nconjecture.  Therefore, the approach made by the trial Court is totally
\nincorrect. Under the said circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellants\/accused are really having subsisting force
\nand whereas the argument advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for
\nCBI cases is sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.It has already been pointed out that the trial Court has invited
\nconviction and sentence against the accused 3 & 4 under Sections 13(1)(d) read
\nwith 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  It is an admitted fact
\nthat no specific charge has been framed against the accused 3 & 4 under the said
\nSections.  Even though specific charge has not been framed against the accused 3
\n& 4 under the said Sections, the trial Court has invited conviction and sentence
\nagainst them under the said Sections. On that score also the approach  made by
\nthe trial Court is totally against law.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.It has already been pointed out that the prosecution has not at all
\nestablished the guilt of each and every accused under the Sections found in the
\ncharges and the trial Court has invited conviction and sentence merely on the
\nbasis of surmise and conjecture, and therefore, the  entire conviction and
\nsentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and altogether,
\nthe present criminal appeals can be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.In fine, the present criminal appeals are allowed and the conviction
\nand sentence passed against the appellants\/accused in Calendar Case No.2 of 1995
\nby the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai are set aside and the
\nappellants\/accused are acquitted of the charges.  Bail bonds executed by them
\nshall stand cancelled and the fine amounts paid by them are ordered to be
\nrefunded forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Special Judge, (for CBI Cases)
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Crl.A.No.637 of 1997 & Crl.A.No.645 of 1997 1.A.Murali . . . Appellant in Crl.A.No.637\/1997 \/4th accused 1.S.N.Murugesan 2.S.N.Nagarajan 3.S.Kanagaraj . . . Appellants in Crl.A.No.645\/1997 \/Accused 1 to […]<\/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-244828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 - 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\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-19T18:49:51+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T18:49:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4262,\"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\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\",\"name\":\"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T18:49:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 - 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\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-19T18:49:51+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T18:49:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009"},"wordCount":4262,"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\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009","name":"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T18:49:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-murali-vs-state-represented-by-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Murali vs State Represented By on 8 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/244828","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=244828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}