John Samuel Vs State Rep by

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 10.09.2025

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 08.10.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2022

¶8

Dr.John Samuel ... Petitioner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police, Police Research Centre, Chennai. Cr.No.2/2001. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 401 r/w 397 of Code

¶10

of Criminal Procedure, to allow the above Criminal Revision and set aside the order of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge of Kanchipuram at Chengalpattu dt.18.2.2022 in Crl.A.No.16/2016, partly allowing the same and partly confirming the findings and order of conviction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu in CC.No.495/2010 by order dt 21.04.2016 made against the petitioner herein and modifying the sentence therein and acquit the appellant/Accused No.1 in toto.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srinivas, Senior Counsel for

¶12

Page No.1 of 31

Accused	Offences	Conviction and Sentence
A1 to A4	408, 465, 468, 471 & 477(A) r/w 109 IPC	A1 to A4 sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment each.
A1 to A6	467 IPC	Found Not Guilty
A5 & A6	408, 465, 468, 471 & 477A r/w 109 IPC	Found Not Guilty

Accused	Conviction and Sentence of trial Court	Findings of Lower Appellate Court
A1	408, 465, 468, 471 & 477A r/w 109 IPC	● Conviction and Sentence of the trial Court for offence under Sections 465, 468 & 471 IPC are set aside. ● Conviction and Sentence of the trial Court for offence under Sections 408 & 477A r/w 109 IPC are modified to one year for each offence. Fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for each offence is confirmed.
A2, A3 & A4	408, 465, 468, 471 & 477A r/w 109 IPC	Conviction and Sentence of the trial Court are set aside.

Rank of	Witnesses	Gist of the Deposition
Witnesses
PW1	Tr.Kodumudi Shanmugam	He deposed that from 20.12.2000 he was a Member and Vice- Chairman in Director of Institute of Asian Studies on 31.03.2000 Board of Government meeting was conducted and the Auditor Report was scrutinized by every member on whom the report was given. During such period the 1^staccused was in the position of Administrative Director. Queries were raised and the Director

Rank of Witnesses	Witnesses	Gist of the Deposition
		replied the facts contained in the Audit report was certified by the Auditor only. He suspects the Director and the Board of Governor removed Mr.John Samuvel and he was appointed as the Director. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent Police and also handed over the records (Ex.P1 to P4) Ex.P5 (Complaint).
PW2	Tr.Madhavan	He deposed that he worked from 11.04.90 to 08.04.1999 as an accountant and withdrew the cash through Mr.Kolappan and handed over to 1st accused for his personal expenses. No building was constructed, but salaries and other expenses were paid from Rs.2.5 lakhs, which was received from the General Government and some facts.[Exs.P6 to 9]
PW3	Tr.Hariharan	He disclosed that he worked as an administrative officer from 1997 to 1999 and received funds of Rs.2.5lakhs. No building was constructed and confirmed 1st accused has not followed the roads, as it is formulated and some facts.
PW4	Tr.Srinivasan	He disclosed that he has been auditing the accounts of the Institute of Asian Studies for the past 10 years. He further says that he has confirmed points 1 to 7 in the Audit report dated 05.12.2000

Rank of Witnesses	Witnesses	Gist of the Deposition
		and points 5,6 & 7relates to the receipt and expenses of the Institute. Further the 1st accused personally approached him to remove the points 5, 6 & 7 from the report. He said no and he denied the new report, which was not authorized by him, as points 5, 6 & 7 were missing. Further, the report shown by P.W.1 was only one page and the other was missing. He confirms that his signature was forged in the new reports and some facts. Ex.P 10 to 13.
PW5	Tr.Sivakumar	He deposed that he was working with Mr.Seenivasan, Auditor to submit the records to the investigation officer to confirm the signatures of his Senior to be compared with the report submitted by the 1st accused which is alleged to be a forged one.
PW6	Tr.Kumar	He deposed that he and one Balaji were working as condense in the MLA Hostel situated opposite to CBCID office and confirmed to be the witnesses for the enquiry conducted with 1st accused and obtaining the specimen signature and some facts.
PW7	Tr.Christober John	He deposed that he submitted the records for the purpose of investigations to the CBCID police which consists of original and

Rank of Witnesses	Witnesses	Gist of the Deposition
		Xerox copies and some facts. Ex.P.15 to 13.
PW8	Tr.Nagaraj	Deposed that he is the panchayat President of Chemmencheri confirmed that he was called on by the CBCID police in their spot visit to the Institute and identified 500 numbers damaged bricks and 6 feet pit digged that too was not in perfect condition for any purposes. He signed as a witness in the Mahazar and some facts.
PW9	Tr.Vishwanathan	He deposed that he was witnessing the investigation and enquiry conducted byMr.Baskar, Chelladurai, of 1st accused, and specimen signature obtained from the concerned and some facts.
PW10	Tr.Karunakaran	He deposed that he was supplying Jallys, bricks, and sand to the Institute and since 1995-96 he has not made any sales, and no bill was raised and some facts.
PW11	Tr.Dhanasekaran	He deposed that he was supplying building materials in the name of Virco Transport and proper receipt was given against the acknowledgment of payment from 06.04.1999 to 24.02.2000, 134 receipts showed by the CBCID was not given by him and no supply was made during the period, and some facts.
PW12	Tr.Varkees	He deposed that he worked as

Rank of Witnesses	Witnesses	Gist of the Deposition
		Mestri from 1995 to 1996 when the building was constructed from 03.04.1999 to 31.07.1999 more than 51 vouchers showed by CBCID were not acknowledged by one, as now work done and no payment received by him. Since 1996 and some facts.
PW13	Tr.Ravindran	Deposed that he is running a hardware shop in the name of one Sarma Enterprises and confirmed that he was not made and supplies to the Institute so for, and some facts.
PW14	Tr.Bharathi	Deposed that he confirmed that he is working as a sweeper since 1996 and the receipt, dated 05.05.1999, 05.06.1999 and 05.07.1999 is a false one, and no payment was received by him and his signature was forged and some facts.
PW15	Tr.Ganayyan	Deposed that he was working as a watchman at the Institute and he left the job before 1999 and the vouchers dated 05.05.1999 and 05.06.1999 and 05.07.1999 as a forged one, no payment was received byhim and some facts.
PW16	Dr.Kuzhandhai Samy	Deposed that he did not receive any proper reply from the 1st accused when raised queried on the Audit report submitted and confirmed the removal of 1st accused and the complaint registered byP.W.1 in the CBCID

Rank of Witnesses	Witnesses	Gist of the Deposition
		for investigation.
PW17	Tr.Nagarajan	He deposed that he took up a photo at Institute of Asian Studies Campus at Chemmancerry and handed over two photos with negative to CBCID and some facts.
PW18	Tr.Kasi	Deposed that he has confirmed the signature submitted for handwriting verification and document scrutinization under document No. Doc. 126/2002, dated 07.06.2002. Ex.P.36 to 40.
PW19	Tr.Sivaveliyappan, Inspector	Deposed that he received the complaint and registered the FIR in Cr.No.02 of 2001.
PW20	Tr.Moorthy, DSP	Deposed that he took up the case for investigation and examined the witnesses, verified the records obtaining the opinion from the Document expert After completion of an elaborate and detailed investigation, he filed a final report before the concerned court in accordance with the law.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Rajeswari Vs State Rep by

S.K.Elumalai Vs K.Madhu Srinivas

R.Elavarasan Vs State Rep by

R.Suresh Vs State Rep by

Ramesh, Aged 44 Years, Vs State, Represented by

M.a.Narayanan Vs State Rep by