Dismissed

V.Poongodi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Dec 2013CRL RC(MD)/734/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed two criminal revision petitions filed by V.Poongodi against orders framing charges in cases concerning irregularities in fertilizer handling. The court held no substantial ground existed to interfere, noting that the trial court cannot inquire into evidence sufficiency at the charge-filing stage.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petitions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. were dismissed.

V.Poongodi Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶5

CRL.R.C.(MD) Nos.734 and 712 of 2013 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2013

¶6

In Crl.R.C.734 of 2013

¶7

V.Poongodi

¶8

... Petitioner/Petitioner/A4

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State by the Inspector of Police, CCIW, Dindigul. ... Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant

¶11

Prayer : Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2920 of 2010 in C.C.No.103 of 2008 dated 16.08.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate In Crl.R.C.712 of 2013 V.Poongodi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/A3

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State by the Inspector of Police, CCIW, Dindigul. ... Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant

¶15

Prayer : Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2919 of 2010 in C.C.No.102 of 2008 dated 16.08.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revisions are filed against the orders passed in Cr.M.P.Nos.2919 and 2920 of 2010 in C.C.Nos.102 & 103 of 2008 dated 16.08.2013.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State and perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.

¶22

3.It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was working as a Cerk in the A.2250, Veeralapatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank from 30.01.1992. As per the resolution of the Special Officer dated 25.04.1994, the petitioner/accused was in charge of the fertilizers and the connected records. She was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities as follows:-

¶23

a) She has to maintain the ledgers pertaining to the stock fertilizers.

¶24

b) She has to remit the sale amount into the office of the P.A.C.B and obtain the receipts.

¶25

c)She has to maintain the ledgers pertaining to the empty gunnies.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the said PACB is under the control of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Palani (Defacto complainant). On information, to probe the irregularities found under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983, the Deputy Registrar had ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy Registrar had lodged a complaint against all the accused. On that basis, FIR has been registered in Crime No. 6 of 2005.

¶27

On a perusal of records and the counter filed by the respondent, it is seen that the petitioner was entrusted with the duties and responsibility to maintain the ledgers pertaining to the stock fertilizers, remit the sale amount into the office of P.A.C.B and maintain the ledgers pertaining to the empty gunnies. The enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer shows that certain irregularities has been committed by all the accused including the petitioner who has been arrayed as A4 in one case and A3 in another case. The trial court at the stage of framing charges canot embark on an inquiry as to whether evidence in question is sufficient to proceed further or not. All that is required is to see whether prima facie case regarding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commission of certain offence charged is made out and the question whether the charge will eventually stand proved or not can be determined only after evidence is recorded during trial.

¶28

¶29

In view of the above, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai in Cr.M.P.Nos.2919 and 2920 of 2010 in C.C.Nos.102 & 103 of 2008 dated 16.08.2013. Therefore, both the revisions are dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court should not influence the court in the course of trial or conclusion of trial. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶32

/ True copy /

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

1.The Inspector of Police,CCIW, Dindigul.

¶36

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai

¶37

3.-do- thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

¶38

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.D.Venkadesh, Advocate in Sr No.60732.

¶40

Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos. 734 and 712 of 2013 and MP(MD)Nos. 1 and 1 of 2013 05.12.2013

¶41

ses

¶42

msm 21.01.2014 p3/6c

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Poongodi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Poongodi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ramakrishnan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Gandhi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.M. Rajendra Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Sreedharan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

L.Akila Loganathan Vs B.Meenakshi Sundaram

Udhaya @ Udhayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police