Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.NARAYANASAM versus V.SOMASUNDARA

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.Narayanasam v. V.Somasundara - Criminal Revision Case No.175 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 1507 (18 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN

Criminal Revision Case No.175 of 2006

P.Narayanasamy .. Petitioner

complainant

Vs

V.Somasundaram .. Respondent

accused

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.1.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No.4294 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar.

For Petitioner .. Mr.Annamalai for

Mr.K.M.Vijaiyakumar

For Respondent .. No appearance

:O R D E R



The Revision is directed against the order dated 10.1.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No.4294 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar.

2.The gist of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant was working in Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service. One Somasundaram was examined as a witness on behalf of the Administration. During the course of enquiry he gave evidence to the effect that the revision petitioner created the forged documents and thereby committed fraud. Challenging the enquiry, the complainant filed a writ petition before this Court. The petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 157(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

3.The complainant in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined one Murugesan-P.W.1 and Sivasekaran as P.W.2 and filed Ex.P1.

4.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the submissions of the petitioner and he analysed the materials on record and came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case against the accused. So, he dismissed the complaint.

5.Challenging the dismissal order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the complainant.

6.Point for Determination:

1.Whether the Revision is maintainable ? POINT:

7.The complainant was working in Virudhunagar District Central Co- operative Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and based on the enquiry reqport he was dismissed from service. It is the case of the revision petitioner that one Somasundaram was examined as a witness on behalf of the Administration, who gave evidence before the enquiry officer that the revision petitioner corrected the period in the fixed Deposit Receipts and thereby gave a false report.

8.Therefore the Revision Petitioner filed a petition under Section 157(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Section 157(2) reads as follows:

"157.Punishment for furnishing false information or disobeying summons or other lawful order, requisition or direction:

1...... (2)Any officer, employe or a paid servant or any member of the society who wilfully makes a false return or furnishes false information, or any person who wilfully or without any reasonable excuse, disobeys any summons, requisition or other lawful order, or direction issued under the provisions of this Act, or who wilfully withholds or fails to furnish any information lawfully required from him by a person authorised in this behalf under the provisions of this act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both."

9.Relying on the above, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the said Soma Sundaram has committed an offence under Section 157(2) of the Act and submitted that the Court has to take action under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.

10.Section 164 the Act deals with cognizance of offence and as per sub section 3 of Section 164 of the Act, no prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar and such sanction shall not be given without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to represent his case. The learned counsel submitted that he made the representation before the competent authority for sanction but, he could not obtain the same. So, as on today, he has not obtained any sanction.

11.Further it is pointed out before the trial Court that as per Section 9 of the Act, the competent authority has to pass the sanction order within 120 days from the date of representation and it is submitted that the petitioner filed the representation on 4.9.2004. Since the competent authority has not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be presumed that the sanction has been accorded. But on perusal of the records, the trial Court found that only the copy of the representation was available and there was no acknowledgment that it was received by the competent authority. Further the trial Court found that the petitioner has not given sufficient time to the competent authority to pass any order on the representation and it was found that there is a bar under Section 164(3) of the Act, to entertain the complaint.

12.Further, I perused the materials available on record carefully. Even Sivasekaran who was examined on the side of the complainant/revision petitioner deposed against the petitioner. He stated that Soma Sundaram did not give any false evidence before the enquiry officer. So, this also goes against the stand of the petitioner.

13.Therefore, the learned trial Judge has meticulously considered the case and came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie against the accused. So, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has come to the correct conclusion and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge.

14.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar, in Crl.M.P.No.4294 of 2005 dated 10.1.2006.

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Virudhunagar. 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.