Allowed

K. Malaisamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Jun 2016CRL RC(MD)/134/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a C.R.L. revision, the Madurai Bench held that administrative negligence and failure to exercise proper supervision in a credit society's jewel appraisal duty do not constitute criminal conspiracy. The court allowed the revision and discharged the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged from C.C.No.9 of 2014; connected criminal miscellaneous petition closed.

K. Malaisamy Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.06.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶3

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.134 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2111 of 2016

¶4

K.Malaisamy ... Petitioner

¶5

-vs-

¶6

State through Inspector of Police CCIW (CID), Theni (Crime No.1 of 2013) ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order, dated 12.01.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, (CCIW), Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.4738 of 2014 in C.C.No.9 of 2014 and set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jeyaram

¶9

For Respondent : Mrs.Prabha

¶10

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Since his discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.4738 of 2014 in C.C.No.9 of 2014 has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, A2 has directed this revision.

¶13

2. In Theni District, in Jeyamangalam, there is 'Jeyamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society'. It gives jewel loans. A1 served as its Appraiser, while A2 / revision petitioner was its Secretary.

¶14

3. The Investigation Officer, after recording statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and seizure of large number of documents, filed the Final Report, for offences under Sections 403, 408, 420, 477-A and 120-B I.P.C. r/w 34 and 109 I.P.C.

¶15

4. It is alleged that A1, while appraising pledged jewel, used to cut a portion of it and kept the balance jewels alone in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ locker and misappropriated the secreted portion of jewel. In this way, he is alleged to have misappropriated 155.400 grams of gold

¶16

¶17

and it was valued at Rs.4,50,660/-.

¶18

5. It is alleged that had A2 as Secretary checked them then and there and kept the jewels in the locker properly, A1 would not have had the opportunity to misappropriate the jewels, A2 has conspired together with A2, acted in common intention and abetted A1 to commit the offence.

¶19

6. A person can be prosecuted based on incriminating materials disclosing commission of certain offences. Taking the materials at their face value, unrebutted, if they warrant a conviction, then it would be a case for charge, otherwise, it would be a case for discharge. To put it in other words, if there is prima facie case or there is ground to proceed further, A2 can be charged, otherwise not.

¶20

7. Thus, the allegation as against the revision petitioner is that he had failed to exercise proper supervision, he performed his duties negligently, he was careless and he has committed administrative lapses. This may be a ground for taking disciplinary action as against A2 as per his Service Rules, but not criminal action under criminal law. In the facts and circumstances, there is no ground to proceed further as against A2 for the offence alleged as against him. Thus, the impugned Order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable.

¶21

8. In view of the foregoings, this criminal revision is allowed. The revision petitioner / A2 is discharged from C.C.No.9 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (W)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

To:

¶26

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,(CCIW), Madurai.

¶27

2.The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, CCIW (CID), Theni. +1 CC to Mr.A.JEYARAM, Advocate, SR No.29709

¶28

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.134 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2111 of 2016

¶29

krk

¶30

SH/SKS-RR/SAR-I:23.06.2016:2P/5C

¶31

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

K. Malaisamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Malaisamy 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

G. Karuppasamy @ Petchiyappan Vs K. Pandiswari

Vignesh Kumar Vs Indira

Ganesan Vs Muthu Buvaneswari

Shanmugam Vs the Inspector of Police

K.S.S.Raj Vs a.Muthumari

Sagunthala Vs the Inspector of Police