IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.04.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.O.P.Nos.23559 to 23562 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 (4 cases) G.Srinivasan .. Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps. Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, CCIW/CID, Vellore. Crime No.5/2005 .. Respondent in all Crl.O.Ps. Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to C.C.Nos.267, 268, 269 and 270 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Vellore and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs.Vedavallikumar For Respondent : Mr. J.C. Durairaj, G.A (Crl.side) C O M M O N O R D E R As the petitioner/respondent are the same in all these petitions and the same question is raised for consideration, they can be disposed of by a common order. 2.The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in case pending in C.C.Nos.267, 268, 269 and 270 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Vellore seeks to quash the proceedings as against him. 3.The petitioner was the Secretary of the Chinnakallupalli Primary Co-operative Bank between the period 12.12.1990 to 16.12.2004. He was the Chief Executive Officer thereof. The allegations against the petitioner is that he had fabricated records towards showing that crop loans have been granted, usurped funds without grant of fertilizer loans and prepared bills to reflect the grant thereof. By the aforesaid action, a sum of Rs.2,87,878.30/- is alleged to have been embezzled by the accused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.On due investigation, charge sheets have been filed by the respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections C.C.No.267 of 2007 : 408,467,471 & 477(A)IPC C.C.No.268 of 2007 : 408,467,471 &477(A)IPC C.C.No.269 of 2007 : 408 & 477(A)IPC C.C.No.270 of 2007 : 408 & 477(A)IPC 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner pleading the petitioner's innocence would state that Section 164(3) of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act would be a bar to the prosecution of the petitioner, in the absence of sanction from the Registrar for such prosecution. Again, such section provided that the concerned person ought to be given a reasonable opportunity to represent his case. 6.The further contention is that an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act was to be concluded within a period of three months. Such period can be extended to a total aggregate of six months. In the instant case, the enquiry was extended way beyond the period contemplated. The audit report up to the end of the year 2004 had been prepared and no wrong doings were pointed out therein. Most of the loans spoken of in the complaints had been cleared by the respective borrowers. In some cases, arbitration awards have been passed against the borrowers and execution petition was pending towards attachment and sale of property. A 100% verification had been conducted by one Amudha and it is the same person who has conducted the enquiry under Section 81 of the Act. 7.Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8.The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner straightaway would have to be rejected since Section 164 (3) of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) would come into play in respect of prosecution for an offence under the particular Act. What is now complained of against the petitioner are offences under the Indian Penal Code. This Court is constrained to observe that the contentions raised on the strength of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act and relating to procedure therein are misplaced. In the instant cases, on completion of investigation, the trial has been proceeded with and the cases are at the stage of questing of the accused. Both on factual considerations as also following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Amarchand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose AIR 1973 SC 799, to the effect that progress in cases which are at an advanced stage normally are not to be interfered with, this Court is of considered opinion that these are not cases fit to exercise power https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar gm To 1.The Inspector of Police, CCIW/CID, Vellore. Crime No.5/2005 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104. 3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore. 4 cc to M/s.Vedavallikumar, Advocate, Sr.No.28576 Crl.O.P.Nos.23559 to 23562 of 2007 AKR {CO} TP/14.6.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/