1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.227 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.Jaya Sheeli 2.J.Isaac . . . Revision Petitioners Vs. The State, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, CCIW CID, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, Crime No.1/95. . . . Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401(1) of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1892 of 2010 in C.C.No.3 of 1997 dated 11.01.2011, by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, (C.C.I.W. Special Court) Tirunelveli. For petitioner : Mr.L.Krishnamoorhy For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran, Government Advocate (Criminal side) O R D E R The present revision is filed by the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 in C.C.No.3 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli, challenging the order dated 11.01.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.1892 of 2010, under which the petitioner prays for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and the same came to be dismissed. 2. It is averred by the petitioners/A2 and A.3 in the petition filed for discharge that they were charge sheeted along with four others in C.C.No.12 of 1995 for the commission of the offences under Sections 467, 477(A), 471, 408 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli after trial, convicted the accused and sentences them vide order dated 08.08.2003. It is further averred by the petitioner that the case in C.C.No.3 of 1997 pertains to the offences under Section 467, 471, 477(A), 408 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 and the same is pending trial. The period of the Commission of the offence, according to the prosecution was between 22.08.1990 to 21.11.1992. It is further stated by the petitioners that since they were already convicted in C.C.No.12 of 1995 for the commission of the similar offences, the continuation of trial in C.C.No.3 of 1997 is in violation of Sections 212 (2), 219(1), 220(1), (2) and Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that it also amounts to double Jeopardy and hence, for the reasons, the petitioner pleaded for discharge. 3. The prosecution filed counter, contending among others things that the offences in C.C.No.3 of 1997 and 12 of 1995 are not similar and the offences are committed during different dates and therefore, the above cited provisions have no application to the facts of the case and hence, prays for the dismissal of the petition. 4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli, after taking into consideration the rival submissions found that the offences pertaining to the two cases were committed during two different periods; the complaints were lodged based on two different reports filed by different enquiry officers under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act and the offences pertaining to C.C.No.12 of 1995, were committed earlier to that of offence committed in C.C.No.3 of 1997. The lower Court also recorded the finding that the case in C.C.No.12 of 1995 was taken on file on 27.03.1995 and was pending till 08.08.2003; the case in C.C.No.3 of 1997 was taken on file on 10.02.1997 and is pending till date. During the said period, no objection has been raised by the petitioners for conducting separate trial and belatedly they took the present petition for discharge and hence, found that the contentions put forth on behalf of the accused did not merit acceptance. Therefore, the lower Court dismissed the petition and the challenge is made to the said order by filing this revision. 5. Heard the submissions made by Mr.L.Krishna Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent. This Court also perused the typed set of documents. 6. Admittedly, the period of commission of offence in C.C.No.3 of 1997 is between 19.11.1990 and 23.12.1992 and the period during which alleged criminal acts committed by the accused exceeds more than an year and therefore, there cannot be any joint trial of cases under Section 212 (2) of Cr.P.C. Section 219(1) of Cr.P.C. has no application to the case on hand since more than one accused are tried jointly and that each falsification of accounts also would amount to an offence. Similarly Section 220(1), (2) also has no application to the case on hand because more than one accused is being tried in C.C.No.3 of 1997. 7. The lower Court has also recorded that C.C.No.12 of 1995 and C.C.No.3 of 1997 came to be registered on the basis of the separate enquiry report filed under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and though C.C.No.12 of 1995 and C.C.No.3 of 1997 were pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli for a quite long time till the disposal of C.C.No.12 of 1999 on 08.08.2003, no objections were raised by the accused for separate trial and in fact both the cases were pending for nearly eight years. Hence, Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code is also not applicable to this Court and citing the said reason, the lower Court dismissed the said application. 8. Since there has been substantial compliance of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court is of the view that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 petitioners/accused are not able to prove that there is error in the procedure adopted by the trial Court in trying the case in C.C.No.3 of 1997 and hence, they are prejudiced. There is no infirmity or illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and there is no merit in this revision. 9. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, (C.C.I.W. Special Court), Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, CCIW CID, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC TO MR. T. JEEN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 7898 Order in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.227 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2001 Delivered on 23.03.2011 sj PAM 11.04.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/