{"id":90069,"date":"2008-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-03T09:54:03","modified_gmt":"2014-10-03T04:24:03","slug":"p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:20\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCriminal Revision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003\nand\nCriminal Revision Case Nos.730 to 732 of 2005\n\n\nP.Jebac Angel Martin\t\t   ... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\tCrl.R.C.Nos.1025 to\n\t\t\t\t\t1030 of 2003\n\n\nMurugan\t\t\t\t   ... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\tCrl.R.C.Nos.730 to\n\t\t\t\t\t732 of 2005\n\nVs\n\n\nState represented by the\nSub-Inspector of Police,\nC.C.I.W. CID.,\nTuticorin District.\t\t   ... Respondent in all\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t      the revision cases<\/p>\n
\t\tCriminal Revision Cases have been filed under Section 397 and 401 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed in
\nC.A.Nos.78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions cum
\nChief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin, modifying the conviction and
\nconfirming the sentence dated  29.06.2001 passed in C.C.Nos.57, 58, 59, 60, 61
\nand 62 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate  No.II, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
!For petitioners     \t...\tMr.V.R.Shanmuganathan\n       \t\t\t   \tCrl.R.C.Nos.1025 to\n\t\t\t\t 1030 of 2003\n\nFor petitioners         ...\tMr.V.Kathirvelu\n \t\t\t\tCrl.R.C.Nos.730 to\n\t\t\t\t 732 of 2005\n\n^For  respondent  \t...\tMr.K.R.Thiagarajan,\nin all the revision     \tGovernment Advocate,\ncases\t\t    \t\t(Criminal Side)\n\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\t\n\t\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThese criminal revision cases have been filed against the judgments
\npassed in Calendar Case Nos.57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 by the Judicial Magistrate
\nNo.II, Tirunelveli and in Criminal Appeal Nos.78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85
\nof 2001 by the Additional Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
\nTuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.57 of 1999 can be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t The first accused has served as Special Officer in  E.E. Thiruchendur Co-
\noperative Weaving Mills Employees’ Co-operative Store,  Nazreth.  The second
\naccused has served as writer.  From 20.12.1993 to 15.11.1994 both the accused
\nhave colluded together and taken amount for purchasing groceries and cosmetics,
\nand after purchasing groceries and cosmetics, they failed to remit balance
\namount  of Rs.49,550\/- and both of them have defalcated the balance amount.
\nUnder the said circumstances, both the accused are said to have committed
\noffences under Sections 409, 408, 477(a) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t  3.The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused,
\nhas framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and explained to
\nthe accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t  4.On the side of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 8 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P26 have been marked.\tWhen the accused have been questioned under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity
\nin the crimes.  On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked and no oral
\nevidence has been adduced on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 5.The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record has
\nfound the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read<\/p>\n
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused guilty under Sections
\n408, 477(a) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
\none year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000\/- for each
\noffence with default clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t  6.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\nfirst accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2001 and the
\nsecond accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2001 on the file of the
\nAdditional Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin. The first
\nappellate court after reappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed
\nCriminal Appeal No.65 of 2001 and set aside the conviction and sentence passed
\nagainst the second accused and partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2001 and
\nfound the first accused guilty under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and
\nconfirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t  7.Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, Criminal
\nRevision Case No.1025 of 2003 has been filed by the first accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t  8.The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.58 of 1999 can be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t The first accused has served as Special Officer in  E.E. Thiruchendur Co-
\noperative Weaving Mills Employees’ Co-operative Store,  Nazreth.  The second
\naccused has served as writer.  From 13.04.1995 to 30.01.1996, both the accused
\nhave colluded together and taken amount for purchasing groceries and cosmetics,
\nand failed to remit the balance amount of Rs.32,677.65 and thereby both of them
\nare said to have committed offences under Sections 409, 408, 477(a) read with 34
\nof the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t  9.The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused,
\nhas framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and explained to
\nthe accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t 10.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P27 have been marked.\tWhen the accused have been questioned under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity
\nin the crimes.  On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked and no oral
\nevidence has been adduced on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 11.The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record,
\nhas found the first accused guilty under Sections 409, 477(a) read with 34 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code and the second accused guilty under Sections 408, 477(a)
\nread with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo one year
\nrigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000\/- for each offence
\nwith default clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\nfirst accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2001 and the
\nsecond accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2001 on the file of the
\nAdditional Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The first appellate court after reappraising the evidence available on
\nrecord, has allowed Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2001 and ultimately set aside the
\nconviction and sentence passed against the second accused and partly allowed
\nCriminal Appeal No.78 of 2001 and found the first accused guilty under Section
\n409 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the
\ntrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, Criminal
\nRevision Case No.1026 of 2003 has been filed at the instance of the first
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.59 of 1999 can be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t The first accused has served as Special Officer in  E.E. Thiruchendur Co-
\noperative Weaving Mills Employees’ Co-operative Store,  Nazreth.  The second
\naccused has served as writer.  From 07.08.1996 to 24.08.1996, both the accused
\nhave colluded together and taken amount for purchasing groceries and cosmetics,
\nand failed to remit the balance amount of Rs.2,650\/- and thereby they committed
\noffences under Sections 409, 408, 477(a) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t 16.The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused,
\nhas framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and explained to
\nthe accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t 17.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P27 have been marked.\tWhen the accused have been questioned under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity
\nin the crimes.  On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked and no oral
\nevidence has been adduced on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 18.The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record has
\nfound the first accused guilty under Sections 409, 477(a) read with 34 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and the second accused guilty under Sections 408, 477(a) read
\nwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous
\nimprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000\/- for each offence, with
\ndefault clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\nfirst accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2001 and the
\nsecond accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2001 on the file of the
\nAdditional Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The first appellate court after reappraising the evidence available on
\nrecord, has allowed Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2001 filed by the second accused
\nand thereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The
\nfirst appellate Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2001 and
\nultimately found the first accused guilty under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code
\nand confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t 21.Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the first
\naccused has filed Criminal Revision Case No.1027 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t 22.The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.60 of 1999 can be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t The first accused has served as Special Officer in  E.E. Thiruchendur Co-
\noperative Weaving Mills Employees’ Co-operative Store,  Nazreth.  The second
\naccused has conducted canteen.  The third accused has served as writer.  From
\n02.03.1994 to 13.02.1995, with the intention of committing crimes, the first
\naccused against Rule 70 Sub-Rule 32(2)(a) has supplied groceries to the second
\naccused and the third accused has created bogus records and thereby they caused
\nloss to the tune of Rs.1,33,799.85.  Under the said circumstances, the first
\naccused has committed offences under Sections  409, 477(a) read with 34 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, the second accused has committed offences under Sections 406,
\n109 read with 34 of India Penal Code and the third accused has committed
\noffences under Sections 477(a), 408, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t 23.The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused,
\nhas framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and explained to
\nthe accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t 24.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P84 have been marked.\tWhen the accused have been questioned under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity
\nin the crimes.  On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked and no oral
\nevidence has been adduced on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 25.The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record,
\nhas found the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with 34 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, the second accused guilty under Sections 406 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and the third accused guilty under Section 408, 477(a) read
\nwith 34 of Indian Penal Code and  sentenced the first and third accused to
\nundergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000\/- for
\neach offence, with default clause.  The second accused has been sentenced to
\nundergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000\/-
\nwith default clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t  26.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\nfirst accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2001, the second
\naccused has filed Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2001 and the third accused has filed
\nCriminal Appeal No.68 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t 27.The first appellate court, after reappraising the evidence available
\non record, has allowed Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2001 filed by the third accused
\nand thereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
\nThe first appellate Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2001 and
\nultimately found the first accused guilty under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code
\nand confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court. The first
\nappellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2001 filed by the second
\naccused and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t 28.Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the first
\naccused has filed Criminal Revision Case No.1028 of 2003 and the second accused
\nhas filed Criminal Revision Case No.731 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t 29.The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No.61 of 1999 can be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t The first accused has served as Special Officer in  E.E. Thiruchendur Co-
\noperative Weaving Mills Employees’ Co-operative Store,  Nazreth.  The second
\naccused has conducted canteen.  The third accused has served as writer.  From
\n08.03.1995 to 06.03.1996, all the accused have conspired together with the view
\nto defalcate the amount belong to the Co-operative Store, the first accused has
\nsold groceries to the second accused against Rule 70 Sub Rule 32(2)(a) of the
\nAct and thereby defalcated Rs.2,63,274.65.  Under the said circumstances, the
\nfirst accused is said to have committed offences under Sections  409 & 477(a)
\nread with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the second accused has committed offences
\nunder Sections 406 & 109 read with 34 of India Penal Code and the third accused
\nhas committed offences under Sections 477(a), 408, 109 read with 34 of the
\nIndian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t 30.The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused,
\nhas framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and explained to
\nthe accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t 31.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P65 have been marked. When the accused have been questioned under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity
\nin the crimes.  On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked and no oral
\nevidence has been adduced on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 32.The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record has
\nfound the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with 34 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, the second accused guilty under Section 406 of the Indian
\nPenal Code and the third accused guilty under Sections 408 and 477(a) read with
\n34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the first and third accused to undergo one
\nyear rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000\/- for each
\noffence, with default clause.  The second accused has been sentenced to undergo
\none year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with
\ndefault clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t 33.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\nfirst accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2001, the second
\naccused has filed Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2001 and the third accused has filed
\nCriminal Appeal No.69 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.The first appellate court after reappraising the evidence available on
\nrecord, has allowed Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2001 filed by the third accused and
\nthereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.  The
\nfirst appellate Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2001 and
\nultimately found the first accused guilty under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code
\nand confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court. The first
\nappellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2001 filed by the second
\naccused and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t  35.Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the
\nfirst accused has filed Criminal Revision Case No.1029 of 2003 and the second
\naccused has filed Criminal Revision Case No.732 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t 36.In Calendar Case No.62 of 1999 the case of the prosecution can be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t The first accused has served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-
\noperative Weaving Mills Employees’ Co-operative Store,  Nazreth.  The second
\naccused has conducted canteen.  The third accused has served as writer.  From
\n27.03.1996 to 08.06.1996, all the accused have conspired together for the
\npurpose of committing defalcation and the first accused against Rules has sold
\ngroceries to the second accused and the third accused has created false accounts
\nwith the connivance of the accused 1 & 2 and thereby caused loss to the tune of
\nRs.48,812\/-.  Under the said circumstances, the first accused has committed
\noffences under Sections  409 and 477(a) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
\nthe second accused has committed offences under Sections 408 and 109 read with
\n34 of the India Penal Code and the third accused has committed offences under
\nSections 477(a), 408 and 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t 37.The trial Court, on the basis of accusation made against the accused,
\nhas framed necessary charges and the same have been read over and explained to
\nthe accused and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t 38.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P36 have been marked.\tWhen the accused have been questioned under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their complicity
\nin the crimes.  On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked and no oral
\nevidence has been adduced on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t 39.The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record,
\nhas found the first accused guilty under Sections 409 and 477(a) read with 34 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, the second accused guilty under Section 406 of the Indian
\nPenal Code and the third accused guilty under Sections 408 and 477(a) read with
\n34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the first and third accused to undergo one
\nyear rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000\/- for each
\noffence, with default clause.  The second accused has been sentenced to undergo
\none year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000\/- with
\ndefault clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t  40.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the
\nfirst accused as appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2001, the second
\naccused has filed Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2001 and the third accused has filed
\nCriminal Appeal No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t 41.The first appellate court after reappraising the evidence available on
\nrecord, has allowed Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2001 filed by the third accused and
\nultimately set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
\nagainst.  The first appellate Court has allowed Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2001 in
\npart and found the first accused guilty under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code
\nand confirmed the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court. The first
\nappellate Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2001 filed by the second
\naccused and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t 42.Against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the first
\naccused has filed Criminal Revision Case No.1030 of 2003 and the second accused
\nhas filed Criminal Revision Case No.730 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t 43.Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present
\ncriminal revision cases, common order is pronounced.\n<\/p>\n
\t 44.The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case Nos.57 to 59 of 1999 is
\nthat the first accused viz.,  Jebac Angel Martin has served as Special Officer
\nduring the relevant period in E.E. Tirunelveli Co-operative Weaving Mills
\nExployees’ Co-operative Store.  The second accused viz., Chandira has served as
\nwriter and both the accused have taken certain amounts so as to purchase
\ngroceries and cosmetics, and they failed to remit the balance amount.  Under the
\nsaid circumstances, Calendar Case Nos.57 to 59 of 1999 have been instituted
\nagainst them.    The trial Court has found both the accused guilty under the
\nsaid Sections mentioned supra.  But, the first appellate Court has acquitted the
\nsecond accused and modified the conviction imposed against the first accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t 45.The specific contention of the prosecution in Calendar Case Nos.60 to
\n62 of 1999 is that the first accused viz., Jebac Angel Martin has served as
\nSpecial Officer in the said Society and the second accused viz., Murugan has
\nconducted canteen in it and the third accused has served as writer.  During the
\nrelevant period, the first accused by way of flouting the existing Rules has
\nsold groceries to the second accused who is not at all a member of the society
\nand the third accused has created bogus accounts so as to commit defalcation and
\nthereby caused loss of amounts mentioned in Calendar Case Nos.60 to 62 of 1999.
\nThe trial Court has convicted all the accused mentioned in Calendar Case Nos.60
\nto 62 of 1999.  But, the first appellate Court has acquitted the third accused
\nand modified the conviction imposed against the first accused and confirmed the
\nsentence imposed against the second accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t46.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal
\nrevision case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 has repeatedly contended that the
\nrevision petitioner\/first accused has only served as Special officer and he has
\nhad no connection whatsoever with the dealings alleged to have have been made by
\nthe second and third accused, and for the offences alleged to have been
\ncommitted by the second and third accused, the first accused
\ncannot be mulcted with punishment, but, the Courts below without considering the
\nrole of the first accused, have erroneously found him guilty and therefore, the
\nconcurrent judgments passed by the Courts below in Calendar Case No.57 to 62 of
\n1999 and in Criminal Appeal Nos.77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82 of 2001 are liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t47.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner\/second
\naccused in Criminal Revision case Nos.730 to 732 of 2005 has also contended with
\ngreat vehemence that the second accused viz., Murugan has only conduced canteen
\nand he purchased groceries on credit basis and he has no connection with the
\nalleged offences, but, the Courts below without considering the above aspects,
\nhave erroneously found him guilty and therefore, the conviction and sentence
\npassed against him by the trial Court in C.C.Nos.60 to 62 of 1999, upheld by the
\nfirst appellate Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.83, 84 and 85 of 2001 are liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t 48.The specific contention of the prosecution is that all the accused
\nhave colluded together and thereby caused loss to the society in question.   It
\nis true that the first accused has served as a Special Officer during the
\nrelevant period.  One witness by name Balagurunathan has been examined as PW7 in
\nCalendar Case Nos.57 to 59 of 1999. He has clearly stated in his evidence that
\nas per Sub-Rule 27(1)(a), the Special Officer is alone responsible for the
\nassets and liabilities of the society and further, he is alone responsible for
\nall the credits and liabilities of the society and the first accused has been
\nappointed only for the society in question.  Therefore, from the evidence of PW7
\nviz., Balagurunathan, it is made clear to the Court that for all the acts and
\nomissions of the society, the first accused is alone responsible.  Simply
\nbecause, the second accused found in the said cases viz.,<\/p>\n
Chandira has served as accountant during the relevant period, the first accused
\ncannot shirk his sole responsibility.  Therefore, it is quite clear that the
\nargument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
\nin Criminal Revision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 is sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t 49.It has already been pointed out that the second accused in Calendar
\nCase Nos.60 to 62 of 1999 has conducted canteen during the relevant period and
\nhe has not at all a member of the society, but, the first accused without
\nobserving Rules of the society, has sold groceries to the second accused on
\ncredit basis and the third accused found therein has created bogus records.
\nTherefore, it is quite clear that without common intention amongst accused, the
\nfirst accused would not have given groceries to the second accused on credit
\nbasis.\n<\/p>\n
\t 50.At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the evidence of
\none eyewitness by name Madasamy and he has been examined as PW8 in Calendar Case
\nNos.60 to 62 of 1999.  He has stated in his evidence that during the relevant
\nperiod, he served as Bill Clerk in the society and at that time the first
\naccused has served as Special Officer and the third accused viz., Chandira has
\nserved as Clerk  and the second accused viz., Murugan has run a canteen and he
\nis not at all a member of the society.  On 02.03.1994 the first and third
\naccused have asked him to give groceries to the second accused viz., Murugan on
\ncredit basis and on various dates, he has given groceries to the second accused
\nviz., Murugan on credit basis.  Therefore, it is quite clear that only with the
\nconnivance of all the accused, the second accused has received groceries from
\nthe society on credit basis, even though he is not at all a member of the same.
\nTherefore, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the second accused viz.,
\nMurugan has not committed any offence. Under the said circumstances, the
\nargument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
\nin Criminal Revision Case Nos.730 to 732 of 2005 is really sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t 51.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal
\nRevision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also contended with great vehemence
\nthat in respect of the alleged defalcation one Balagurunathan has been appointed
\nas enquiry officer and he has not conducted enquiry within a period as
\ncontemplated under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983
\nand he has submitted his enquiry report on 11.08.1997 and all these cases have
\nbeen instituted only in the year  1999 and therefore, all the criminal
\nproceedings taken against the first accused are barred by limitation and on that
\nground also, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t 52.In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court
\nto the decision reported in 2007 (2) MLJ (crl) 642 (A.Kannan  Vs.  State rep. by
\nthe Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W. C.I.D. Police, Coimbatore)  wherein this Court
\nhas held that as aper Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies  Act,
\nenquiry to be mandatorily completed within nine months from date of order of
\nenquiry and hence complaint is barred by limitation under Section 81(4) of the
\nsaid Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t 53.For better appreciation, it would be more useful to look into Section
\n81(4) of the said Act  and the same reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“The inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the
\ndate of ordering the inquiry or such further period or periods not exceeding
\nthree months at a time as the next higher authority may permit, provided that
\nsuch extended periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate.”\n<\/p>\n
\t 54.From the close reading of the said Section, it is made clear to the
\nCourt that enquiry contemplated under Section 81 of the said Act, should be
\ncompleted within nine months in aggregation, but, nowhere it is stated in the
\nsaid Section that if any enquiry completed after the said period, the same would
\nbe a bar to launch prosecution against the accused concerned. It is an axiomatic
\nprinciple of law that enquiry under Section 81(4) of the said Act is only to
\nfind out civil liability of the persons concerned, whereas in the present cases
\ncriminal liability of the accused has to be decided.\n<\/p>\n
\t 55.As adverted to earlier, the trial Court has found the first accused
\nguilty under various sections.  But, the first appellate Court hss found him
\nguilty under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.  For all the offences
\nmentioned in Indian Penal Code, the only limitation is mentioned in Section 468
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure.  As per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, the present criminal proceedings initiated against the first accused
\nare not at all barred by limitation.  In fact, in the decision referred to
\nsupra, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been invoked.
\nUnder the said circumstances, it is needless to say that the above limb of
\nargument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
\nin Criminal Revision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 is not legally correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t 56.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal
\nRevision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also vehemently contended that even
\nthough the first accused has acted with negligence, he has not done any wilful
\nnegligence and his mere negligence is not at all sufficient to fasten liability
\nagainst him and the Courts below have failed to consider the laches alleged to
\nhave been committed by him and therefore, the concurrent judgments passed by the
\nCourts below are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t 57.In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court
\nto the decision reported in 1976 (2) MLJ (crl.) 460 (Subbammal @ Rajammal and
\nothers  Vs. The President, The Tenkasi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Tenkasi (in
\nLiquidation) through its Special Officer, having its Office at Kokirakulam,
\nTirunelveli) wherein this Court has held that surcharge notice against ex-
\nPresident and ex-Vice-President and there is no wilful negligence on their part
\nand their mere negligence is not sufficient to fasten liability.\n<\/p>\n
\t 58.In the instant case, it has been pointed out in many places that the
\nfirst accused by way of flouting the mandatory rules of the society, has
\nsupplied groceries to the second accused viz., Murugan, who conducted canteen
\nand further his primary duty is to administer the entire assets  of the society
\nand further he is solely responsible for all the acts and omissions.  Therefore,
\nthe Court cannot come to a conclusion even for a minute that the first accused
\nhas not done wilful negligence and he has done only a mere negligence.
\nTherefore, the dictum found in the decision referred to above is not at all
\nsuitable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Under the said
\ncircumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrevision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 is really
\nsans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t59.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal
\nRevision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also argued that      of-course due
\nto negligence of the first accused, the society has sustained loss and instead
\nof sentencing the first accused, he may be directed to pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t60.In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court
\nto the decision reported in 2000 Criminal Law Journal 2428 (State  Vs.
\nHanamappa) (Karnataka High Court) wherein it has been held that a fine of at
\nleast three times the amount involved may be imposed on the accused so that the
\naggrieved party or the institution can be adequately compensated.\n<\/p>\n
\t 61.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal
\nRevision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 has also drawn the attention of the Court
\nto the decision reported in 2007 (1) MLJ (crl) 1054  (P.Selvarajan  Vs.  State,
\nrep. by S.P.E.CBI GOW, Cochin and another)  wherein this Court has held that
\nconsidering physical condition of the accused sentence of “till rising of the
\nCourt” can be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
\t  62.At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section 53 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code and the same reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of
\nthis Code are-\n<\/p>\n
\tFirst-Death;\n<\/p>\n
\tSecondly-Imprisonment for life;\n<\/p>\n
\t[Clause Thirdly omitted by Act 17 of 1949]
\n\tFourthly-Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:-
\n\t(1)Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)Simple;\n<\/p>\n
\tFifthly-Forfeiture of property;\n<\/p>\n
\tSixthly-Fine.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  Nowhere in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code it is stated that the
\nCourt can impose sentence to the extent of “till rising of the Court”.\n<\/p>\n
\t 63.For better appreciation, the Court can look into the decision reported
\nin AIR 2000 Supreme Court Cases 164 (State of Uttar Pradesh  Vs.  Chandrika)
\nwherein the Honourable Apex Court has held that if accused confesses his guilt,
\nappropriate sentence is required to be imposed.  Further,  the approach of the
\ncourt in appeal or revisions should be to find out whether the accused is guilty
\nor not on the basis of evidence on record.  If he is guilty appropriate sentence
\nis required to be imposed or maintained.  If the appellant or his counsel
\nsubmits  that he is not challenging the order of conviction as there is
\nsufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the Court’s
\nconscious must be satisfied before passing final order that the said concession
\nis based on the evidence on record.  In such cases, sentence commensurating with
\nthe crime committed by the accused is required to be imposed.  Mere acceptance
\nor admission of the guilt should not be ground for reduction of sentence.  Nor
\ncan the accused bargain with the Court that as he is pleading guilty, sentence
\nbe reduced.\n<\/p>\n
\t 64.From the close reading of the decision rendered by the Apex Court,
\nevery court is bound to impose sentence commensurating with the crime committed
\nby the accused. Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt, should not be a
\nground for reduction of sentence.\tTherefore, it is pellucid that sentence
\nshould be imposed on the basis of the gravity of offences committed by the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\t 65.In the instant case, the prosecution has adduced replete evidence to
\nshow that the first accused has caused heavy loss to the society.  Therefore,
\nsentence cannot be given to him till “rising of the Court” and the same is not
\nat all contemplated in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code.  The Courts below
\nhave sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 409
\nof the Indian Penal Code.  Since he has caused heavy loss to the society, it is
\nneedless to say that the sentence imposed against him by the Courts below is
\nperfectly correct and the same is in consonance with the gravity of the offences
\ncommitted by him.  Therefore, the above limb of argument advanced by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case Nos.1025
\nto 1030 of 2003 is not having attractive force.\n<\/p>\n
\t66.The Courts below after having thorough discussion, have rightly
\nsentenced the first and second accused and in view of the discussion made
\nearlier, this Court has not found even a flimsy ground to make interference with
\nthe well merited judgments passed by the Courts below and altogether all the
\ncriminal revision cases deserve dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
\t 67.In fine, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003, 730 to 732
\nof 2005 deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed.   The conviction and
\nsentence passed by the trial Court against the revision petitioners\/accused,
\nupheld by the first appellate Court are confirmed.  The trial Court is directed
\nto take appropriate steps to incarcerate them in prison so as to serve out the
\nremaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Additional Sessions cum
\n  Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n  Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
\n  C.C.I.W. C.I.,
\n  Tuticorin District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Criminal Revision Case Nos.1025 to 1030 of 2003 and Criminal Revision Case Nos.730 to 732 of 2005 P.Jebac Angel Martin … Petitioner in Crl.R.C.Nos.1025 to 1030 […]<\/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-90069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 - 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\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-03T04:24:03+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-03T04:24:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5545,\"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\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\",\"name\":\"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-03T04:24:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 - 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\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-03T04:24:03+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-03T04:24:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008"},"wordCount":5545,"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\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008","name":"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-03T04:24:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-jebac-angel-martin-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Jebac Angel Martin vs State Represented By The on 20 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/90069","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=90069"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90069\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}