IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.1530 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007 S. Durairaj .. Petitioner. Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Villupuram, Villupuram (Dt.) .. Respondent. (Cr.No.2 of 1993) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the entire records in so relates to C.C. No. 154 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam, Villupuram (Dt.) and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. C. Prakasam For Respondent : Mr. N. Kumanan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ***** O R D E R The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 409, 477 and 120(b) IPC stands arrayed as the third accused in C.C. No. 154 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam, Villupuram (Dt.) and seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him. 2. The Crime No. 2 of 1993 came to be registered on the report of the Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Indistries, Villupuram informing the misappropriation of stock and cash at Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Khadi Kraft, Tindivanam by its Manager in connivance with Audit staff. In such complaint, it was informed that while the Manager did not remit the sale proceeds amount of Rs.62,396, the petitioner herein, who audited the accounts of the said office upto 30.09.1990 did not bring to the notice of anybody the misappropriation committed by the Manager and thus he acted in collusion with the Manager. It was averred that the petitioner herein ought to have sent a special report informing the misappropriation to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the complainant's notice and he had failed to do so. However, it is averred that the petitioner passed the remittance register and thus, acted in collusion with the Manager in misappropriation of the cash. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the lower Court on 14.06.2002. The charge sheet in so far as this petitioner is concerned states that he audited the accounts for the period from 01.04.1990 to 30.09.1990 and did not bring the misappropriation of the cash to the knowledge of anybody nor sent any special report to the Board. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution of the petitioner is totally unwarranted resulting in him facing undue harassment and rigour of trial in circumstances, where the records of the complainant in the case would show that he indeed had reported misappropriation of the cash by the Manager and that action against the Manager flowed therefrom. The complaint and also the statement of witness record under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would necessarily fail on the face of the record. So stating, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the certified copies and documents obtained by the petitioner through the Rights to Information Act. On perusal thereof, it is seen under inter departmental communication Na.Ka.No. 18850/E1/01 dated 19.04.2006, xerox copies of the audit report pertaining to Tindivanam Khadi Kraft branch for the period of April 1990 to September 1990 more particularly Audit remarks in Sr. Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 were forwarded. The certified copy forwarded under Right to Information Act informs that Audit objection in Sr. No. 25 was raised by the Assistant Inspector Thiru S. Durairaj i.e. the petitioner herein. Such document, which spelt out the extent of loss in a sum of Rs.6,64,734.30 due to the wrong doing of the Manager / first accused reveals that Audit objection in Sr. No. 25 related to the period from April 1990 to September 1990 and that the objection raised by the petitioner herein was in respect of sum of Rs. 65,561.55 misappropriated in such period. 4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Though this Court would go slow in quashing the proceedings when pursuant to investigation, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken by the lower Court, this Court would not hesitate to come to the aid of the person facing a prosecution, which is manifestly wrong and needs to be shut out at the threshold on the strength of the documents of sterling quality. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others (2008) 14 SCC 1 held as follows: "It cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the defence at the time of framing of the charges though it should be done in very rare cases i.e., where defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution is totally absurd or totally concocted." 6. In the instant case, the records furnished by the complainant department under the Right to Information Act reflects the position that the petitioner indeed objected to the misdoings of the Manager in his Audit report and the same had received due consideration of the authorities concerned. In such circumstances, it would be unjust to prosecute the petitioner on the charge that he had not brought to the notice of the concerned such fact. Requiring him to undergo the rigour of the trial would be besides being unjust also would be an exercise of futility. 7. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceeding in C.C. No. 154 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam, Villupuram (Dt.) is quashed in so far as this petitioner is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam, Villupuram (Dt.) 2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Villupuram, Villupuram (Dt.) 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, SR.11283 Crl.O.P.No.1530 of 2007 AR(CO) sra 26.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/