R. Chandrasekaran v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 23.07.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. R.Chandrasekaran

2. Selvam

...Petitioners

Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCIW - CID, Salem

...Respondent

Prayer:

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment of conviction passed in Crl.A.No.117 of 2017 dated 11.01.2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Salem in confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem in C.C.No.364 of 2006 dated 28.09.2017 by allowing the present Criminal Revision.

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Pachaiyappan for M/s Law Vision For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page 1 / 6

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.117 of 2017 dated 11.01.2023 by the learned II Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Salem, thereby confirming the order of conviction imposed in C.C.No.364 of 2006 dated 28.09.2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 467, 471, 477A r/w 120(b) of IPC.

2. Since the 1st petitioner died, this petition is dismissed as abated in respect of the 1st petitioner and the present petition is confined only with respect of the 2nd petitioner alone.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placd on record.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd petitioner/A.3, who was cashier at Ponnammapet Cotton and Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Ponnammapet, along with others in the said society had committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs.18,450/- by fabricating Page 2 / 6

the document, as if they paid to job workers for polishing the silk sarees, but the job workers were not paid any money, hence the complaint.

5. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.4 of 2004 and after completion of investigation filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.364 of 2006. In order to prove the charges, on the side of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and exhibts Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 were marked and on the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty for offences under Sections 408, 467, 471 and 477A r/w 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment for each offence and imposed fine of Rs.2,500/- for each offence and as against each accused. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence the present revision.

6. It is pertinent to point out that according to the case of prosecution, the petitioner failed to pay the job workers, who had polished the silk sarees. Further, while the matter is pending before the trial court, all the employees were paid the Page 3 / 6

amount, further, at the time of suspending their sentences, this Court, specifically directed the petitioner to pay the amount, which was allegedly misappropriated by them. Accordingly, they had deposited in the name of society.

7. In view of the above, 1st petitioner is convicted for the offence under Sections 408,467, 471, 477A r/w 120(b) of IPC and the sentence imposed on the 2nd petitioner is modified to the period of incarceration which was already undergone by the him, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a further compensation of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five thousand only] to the credit of Ponnammapet Cotton and Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Ponnammapet within a period of four weeks from today, failing with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall stand automatically restored and the respondent is directed to secure the petitioner in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Page 4 / 6

8. Accordingly, the present Appeal is partly allowed. 23.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd To

1. The II Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Salem

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem

3. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCIW - CID, Salem

4. The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras Page 5 / 6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

ssd 23.07.2025 Page 6 / 6