2.The respondent herein has filed a charge sheet against the appellant, who was working as Senior Assistant and promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Division, committed criminal misconduct and cheated United India Insurance Company Limited/Oriental Insurance Company by dishonestly submitting three medical claims in the name of his mother G.Vadivambal during the year 1991, 1995, 1997 and 1999 to 2001 knowing fully well that his mother was getting a family pension from Southern Railway, Madras and as such she was not a dependent.So she is not an eligible person as a dependant to claim mediclaim.The appellant herein had fraudulently shown his mother as dependent and claimed mediclaim and induced United India Insurance Company/Oriental Insurance Company to pay the following sum of Rs.44,938/-, Rs.88,031/-, Rs.1,60,220/- and Rs.18,616/- towards three claims by abusing and misusing his official position illegally and got corresponding pecuniary advantage to himself.3.P.W.17-Inspector of Police, filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused stating that while the appellant/accused was working in United India Insurance Company, the said company has launched Employees Group Medi-Claim Scheme in the year 1990, wherein the scheme implemented medical expenses for its office employees.The Group Insurance Scheme of United India Insurance Company is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the premium is properly paid by the company.In respect of employees, 3/4th of the premium amount was paid by the United India Insurance Company and <th of the premium amount paid by the concerned employee for the coverage amount as per the Rules.In respect of Officers, the United India Insurance Company paid 2/3rd of the premium amount and 1/3rd of the premium amount paid by the officers.The mediclaim was restricted to the staff, wife and two children.Subsequently, in view of the amendment, the parents and the other dependants were also allowed to be included in the scheme.But whereas the appellant herein has shown her as a dependent and he paid the premium amount and claimed medical reimbursement for his mother.To prove the same, P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, was examined and through her, Exs.P11 and P12 were marked to show that the family pension of the mother was Rs.773/- per month and as on 31.12.2001, her family pension was Rs.1,849/-.The Appellant admitted his mother in Trinity Acute Care hospital and presented the medical documents Exs.P3 to P10 for reimbursement and that has been marked through P.W.2-Radhakrishnan, Administrative Officer.Vadivambal was also admitted in some other hospitals and the Doctors, who treated her were examined as P.W.8-Dr.C.B.Krishnakumar, P.W.9-Dr.A.Krishnasamy, P.W.12-Dr.J.Jayaprasad and P.W.15-Dr.P1-Schedule-B, the amended schedule of authorities.In Ex.C.B.Krishnakumar, P.W.9-Dr.A.Krishnasamy, P.W.12-Dr.J.Jayaprasad, P.W.13-S.Viswanathan and P.W.15-Dr.C.Anbarasu has clearly proved that the mother of the appellant was suffering some ailments and admitted in the hospital and got treatment and the hospital issued medical bills.Till his death, he received pension.After his death, his wife Vadivambal, who is the mother of the appellant, received family pension.P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, was examined and through her, Exs.P11 and P12 were marked.From 01.06.1991 to 30.06.1991, pension of Vadivambal was Rs.773/-.Now it has been decided to raise this limit to Rs.500/- per month.Accordingly, the family members of the employee who are not having income more than Rs.500/- per month shall be considered as dependent family members and covered under the Group Mediclaim Scheme."From 29.05.1990 onwards, the income limit of the dependent has been raised to Rs.500/- per month.Subsequently, as per Ex.P17-Circular, dated 20.01.1998, the income limit has been increased from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1,500/- per month.(in all Crl.Appeals) Prayer:Criminal Appeals filed under Sections 374(2) CrPC.read with 27 of the P.C. Act against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2007 made in C.C.Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.C.Anbarasu and through them some of the medical documents have been marked.P.W.6-G.Sundararaman, P.W.7-Thathachari, P.W.10-Rengarajan, Deputy manager and P.W.18-Vedachalam, Deputy manager of United India Insurance Company had received application from the appellant for reimbursement of mediclaim and they perused the documents and passed an order.Since P.W.17 has received some reliable information and on that basis only, he made an enquiry and came to know that the appellant/accused fraudulently and dishonestly including his mother as a dependent and enjoyed the premium concession and obtained a wrongful gain by way of mediclaim, which leads to wrongful loss to the United India Insurance Company.Then, P.W.17-Inspector of Police obtained sanction order Ex.P2 from P.W.1 and after completing his investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused.6.The learned Special Judge after following the procedure, framed necessary charges against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty.The Special Court examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.18 & marked the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P72 and placed the incriminating evidence before the Accused and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and acquitted the accused for an offence under Sections 468, 468 read with 471 IPC, against which, four appeals have been preferred by the appellant herein.P.W.1 has not applied his mind while according sanction for prosecuting the accused.Further, he submitted that Exs.P14 and P22 would prove the mother is a dependent and that there is no document to show that the mother was drawing Rs.1,500/- per month during the relevant period.Even though P.W.3-Section Officer of Southern Railway stated that Vadivambal, mother of the appellant has got family pension more than Rs.1,500/-, there is no evidence to prove the same during the relevant period.P12 was marked to prove the same.For officers, the Company has paid 2/3 premium amount and the concerned officer has to pay 1/3 of the premium amount.The coverage amount under the scheme differs as per the basic salary of the individual.P1, for the posts in the cadre of Assistant Managers, A.Os., A.A.Os.Assistant General Manager is having right to appoint and remove the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Company.While perusing Ex.P2-sanction order, P.W.1-Mr.M.Siddique, who was working as Assistant General Manager accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused.So as per Ex.P1, the Assistant General Manager is a competent person to appoint and remove the Assistant Administrative Officer.I did not call for his service register and perused it.My Vigilance Department has briefed me regarding any pending disciplinary proceedings against the accused and whether he was punished in any departmental enquiry etc. I did not mention about the briefing by my vigilance department regarding the above in my Ex.P2 sanction order.Myself and the Vigilance Department together have drafted Ex.That medical bills have been submitted for reimbursement and the same has been considered by P.W.6-G.Sundararaman, who was working as Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, P.W.7-Thathachari & P.W.10-Rengarajan, who were working as Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company.P.W.13-S.Viswanathan, who was working as Administrative Officer, after processing the papers under Exs.In her chief-examination itself, she stated that as on 31.12.2001, Vadivambal was drawing pension and D.A. amounting to Rs.1,849/-.In the year 1991, her pension was Rs.773/- per month.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Ex.P15-Circular, dated 29.05.1990, in which, it was specifically stated as follows:"As you are aware, under the existing provision for coverage under Group Mediclaim Scheme, 'Family Members' mean, spouse, not more than 2 legitimate children (and additional children and parents to be covered on payment of full premium by the employee).At present any of these 'Family Members' is considered dependent on the employee provided such family member is not having an income more than Rs.100/- per month.18.In Ex.P14, it was specifically mentioned in 'B' Terms of coverage, in clauses-iv and v, which reads as follows:"iv.The employee's spouse/children becoming eligible for coverage after the employee's entry into the Mediclaim Scheme, may be granted cover from the first day of the month following the submission of enrolment from in respect of them.Hence, as and when any new dependant family members of the insured is to be included, the same may be done, subject to exclusion of pre-existing diseases.v. Coverage of dependant parents and additional dependant children shall be subject to the condition that the Company shall not bear any portion of the premium for such dependant as in the case of eligible members of the family. "In the definition of 'Family' and 'Dependants', clause(g) reads as follows:As per clause-(g), since the mother has received family pension below Rs.1,500/- per month, she is eligible for group medi-claim.So the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the mother of the appellant is not a dependent as per Ex.19.It is also pertinent to note the document under Ex.P22-a list of persons proposed for insurance, dated 25.03.1997, wherein the appellant herein has mentioned his family members to be covered with an insurance viz., himself, Vadivambal (mother), Kalaivani (wife), his two sons namely, Gowtham Ganesh and Gowshik Ganesh.In Ex.P22, it was stated as follows:Age limitNo.of persons Employees contributionCompany's contributionTotalUpto 45 years43204804400856 to 65 years11645Total48498045653In such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant herein has abused his position and cheated the United India Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company dishonestly and fraudulently and induced the United India Insurance Company to pay the portion of the premium to his mother.20.Admittedly, no complaint has been given by United India Insurance Company.As already discussed above that as per Ex.P14, mother is a dependent.The evidence of P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, has proved during the relevant period, the monthly family pension of the mother was Rs.773/- and it was below Rs.1,500/-.As per Ex.P22, the entire premium for the mother has been paid by the appellant herein.The evidence of Officers of the United India Insurance Company and the Doctors has proved that Vadivambal has suffered ailments and admitted in the hospital and thereafter, medical reimbursement has been claimed and after perusal of the document, the concerned authority from the United India Insurance Company has ordered for medical reimbursement.So the appellant/accused has no dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the Company.Hence the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out beyond reasonable doubt.21.Since sanction accorded by P.W.1 is not in accordance with law as per the finding made in para-14 of this Judgement, the prosecution itself fails.Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence under Section 420 IPC and since the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which deals with a public servant abused his financial power and obtained gain for himself or for any other person, does not arise.Hence, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) has also not been proved.But the learned Special Judge has failed to consider this aspect, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.So the Special Court is erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.Therefore, I am of the view, the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court is liable to be set aside and hence, they are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.22.In fine, The Criminal Appeals are allowed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.The Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2007, made in C.C.Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, is hereby set aside.The bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled.The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.06.02.2012Index:YesInternet:YeskjR.MALA,J.1.Principal Special Court for CBI Cases Chennai.3.The Special Public Prosecutor (for C.B.I. Cases) High Court, Madras.4.The Record Keeper Criminal Section High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment made inCrl.A.Nos.19 to 22 of 200806.02.2012

Relevant sections: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code