STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. T THULASINGAM
LAWS(SC)-1994-5-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on May 13,1994

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Appellant
VERSUS
T.THULASINGAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL - (1.) THESE appeals arise from the judgment of the Madras High court dated 9/8/1990 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 840 to 855 of 1978, 867 of 1978, 881 to 885 of 1978, 887 of 1978, 889 to 913 of 1978, 916 of 1978, 923 to 937 of 1978, 943 and 944 of 1978 and CA No. 156 of 1981 whereby the accused/appellants before the High court were acquitted by the High court.
(2.) ALL the accused, except accused 105 and 106 were either employed or associated with the Corporation of Madras; accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 were working as Engineers in Electrical Department besides the 1st accused, who died during the trial of the case; accused 6,7,8,9, 10 and 12 were Electrical Supervisors; accused 11, 13, 14 and 15 were employed as Assistant Electrical Supervisors; accused 16 and 17 were Charge Engineers; accused 18 and 19 were Lighting Inspectors, accused 20, 23 and 24 were Temporary Timekeepers; accused 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 37 were Timekeepers; accused 34 and 35 were A.4 clerks; accused 36 and 37 were doing the work of A.4 clerks; accused 38, 39, 40 and 41 were clerks; accused 42 and 43 were Tax Collectors; accused 44 and 49 were Accountants; accused 45 was the Assistant Accounts Officer; accused 46 was the Section Manager; accused 47 was also the Section Manager, accused 48 was clerk in the C.A.D.; accused 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 were employed as Assistant Cashiers in the Cash Department; accused 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 were employed as clerk in Cash Department, accused 66 was employed as clerk in Cash Department; accused 67, 68 and 69 were employed as Gollah in Cash Department; accused 70 was employed in the Revenue Department as Assistant Revenue Officer; accused 71 and 72 were clerks in Voucher Section of C.A.D.; accused 73 was the L.F. Auditor and accused 74 was the Audit Assistant; accused 75 to accused 104 were councillors; accused 75 was the Chairman of the Taxation and Finance Committee; accused 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 were members of the Taxation and Finance Committee; accused 84 was the Chairman of the Accounts Committee; accused 85 and 86 were members of the Accounts Committee; accused 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91 were the members of the Works Committee; accused 92 was the Chairman of the Health Committee; accused 93 and 94 were the members of the Health Committee; accused 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 were councillors; accused 105 was the Bill Collector of Mylapore Hindu Permanent Nidhi Limited and accused 106 was a former labourer of the Corporation of Madras. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants before the High court along with the accused, who were acquitted by the Special Judge and the approvers PWs 1 to 6 and 60 and three others (who died during trial) were the members of the conspiracy between April 1969 and November 1973 and they caused wrongful loss to the Corporation of Madras by preparation of fully bogus muster-rolls and partially bogus muster-rolls in pursuance of the said conspiracy 408 and had the muster-rolls passed for payment, obtained money from the treasury, misappropriated such amounts and did several acts of omission and commission in order to achieve the objects of conspiracy, To unfold the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined 360 witnesses including 7 approvers. PWs 1 and 2 were A.4 clerks in charge of issuing blank muster-roll forms to the outdoor officials for the preparation of muster-rolls. Their predecessors were in A.4 seats, A-34 and A-35. A-36 and A-37 were assistants and were also doing the work of A.4 clerk. The blank muster-rolls issued by the A.4 clerk to the outdoor officials have to be filled up by the outdoor officials and have to be placed to the C.A.D. for being approved by the Engineer. The outdoor officials who process the muster-rolls, are the Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors, and Charge Engineers besides others, Public Witness 5 (approver), A-6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 23 were Electrical Supervisors; A-11, 13, 14 and 15 were Assistant Electrical Supervisors and Public Witness 6 (approver), A-16 and A-17 were Charge Engineers.
(3.) PUBLIC Witness 3 was an Accountant in C.A.D. to which department the filled up or prepared muster-rolls will be sent after scrutiny by A.4 clerk and after being approved by the Electrical Engineer, for further processing. The muster-rolls are processed for order and placed before the officers for being passed by the Assistant Accounts Officer or Chief Accounts Officer. A-44 to 49 were from C.A.D. PUBLIC Witness 3 has been taken as an approver to speak of the involvement of the staff of the central Accounts Department besides other facts. Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 60 were from the Cash Department. A-50 to 55, A-68 to 69 were from the Cash Department. PWs 4 and 60 have been taken as approvers to speak to the involvement of the members of the staff of the Cash Department besides other facts. PWs 7 and 8 speak to the payments made to several persons out of the amounts fraudulently obtained by the fabricated muster-rolls.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.