STATE REP Vs. T.JAYACHANDRAN
LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-357
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 12,2019
State Rep
Appellant
VERSUS
T.Jayachandran
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LORD RUSSELL IN SHEO SWARUP VS. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]RAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM KANU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SURAJPAL SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ATLEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AHER RAJA KHIMA VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
M G AGARWAL M K KULKARNI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NOOR KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KHEDU MOHTON VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
LEKHA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN SINGH GURDIAL SINGH HARDIAL SINGH SURJIT SINGH HARBANS SINGH HAZUR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KHEM KARAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UMEDBHAI JADAVBHAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
K GOPALREDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TOTA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
SAMBASIVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARIJANA THIRUPALA VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
C ANTONY VS. K G RAGHAVAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJARAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. K GOPALAKRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. SANJAY THAKRAN [REFERRED TO]
GHUREY LAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
M.DHANDAPANI,J. -
(1.)This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.03.2012, wherein the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai, had acquitted the
respondents/accused. The respondents/A1 & A2 had been charged
for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 467, 468
r/w. 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act , 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ''the P.C. Act ''].
(2.)The sum and substance of the prosecution case is as follows:- 2.1. A1 - T.Jeyachandran was working as Senior Assistant in the Oriental Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Madurai, during 2001. A.Remigius - A2 is the Proprietor of M/s.Lucky Medicals, DRO Colony, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. During April-May 2000, A1 colluded with A2 and cheated the Insurance Company by claiming bogus medi-claims for self-treatment of A1, using falsely created cash bills of M/s.Lucky Medicals issued by A2 without actual purchase of the medicines, which were not even prescribed for the treatment by the Doctor concerned and which were not concerned with the treatment also. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A1 by misusing his official position, got sanction of medi-claims from the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs.5,053/- and caused wrongful loss to the Insurance Company and thereby, cheated the Company.
2.2. Though initially no one has made a complaint, based on the sources of information, the CBI conducted investigation on their own by examining independent witnesses, including the Doctor, who gave treatment to A1 in the year 2000 and filed charge sheet on 31.01.2004 before the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.6 of 2004. A1 had claimed medi-claims for having admitted in Jebam Hospital, Madurai, belonged to P.W.2- Dr.Nagendran, between 21.04.2000 to 28.04.2000 for the treatment of enteric fever with urinary tract infection. Without any prescription, A1 with the connivance of A2, on his own, created false Exs.P.2 and P. 3 medical bills and the same were produced along with other bills and got sanction of Rs.24,908/-. Though the entire amount was sanctioned, after investigation, the CBI has laid a charge sheet against A1 and A2 only in respect of Exs.P2 and P3 medical bills, worth about Rs.5,053/- alone.
2.3. To substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked 63 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.63. To disprove the prosecution version, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on the side of the accused.
2.4. The Trial Court framed the following point for consideration:- ''Whether the charges framed against the accused are proved by the prosecution?''
2.5.Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai, found that the prosecution not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
(3.)Against the said judgment dated 29.03.2012, the appellant/State has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
(2.)The sum and substance of the prosecution case is as follows:- 2.1. A1 - T.Jeyachandran was working as Senior Assistant in the Oriental Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Madurai, during 2001. A.Remigius - A2 is the Proprietor of M/s.Lucky Medicals, DRO Colony, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. During April-May 2000, A1 colluded with A2 and cheated the Insurance Company by claiming bogus medi-claims for self-treatment of A1, using falsely created cash bills of M/s.Lucky Medicals issued by A2 without actual purchase of the medicines, which were not even prescribed for the treatment by the Doctor concerned and which were not concerned with the treatment also. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A1 by misusing his official position, got sanction of medi-claims from the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs.5,053/- and caused wrongful loss to the Insurance Company and thereby, cheated the Company.
2.2. Though initially no one has made a complaint, based on the sources of information, the CBI conducted investigation on their own by examining independent witnesses, including the Doctor, who gave treatment to A1 in the year 2000 and filed charge sheet on 31.01.2004 before the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.6 of 2004. A1 had claimed medi-claims for having admitted in Jebam Hospital, Madurai, belonged to P.W.2- Dr.Nagendran, between 21.04.2000 to 28.04.2000 for the treatment of enteric fever with urinary tract infection. Without any prescription, A1 with the connivance of A2, on his own, created false Exs.P.2 and P. 3 medical bills and the same were produced along with other bills and got sanction of Rs.24,908/-. Though the entire amount was sanctioned, after investigation, the CBI has laid a charge sheet against A1 and A2 only in respect of Exs.P2 and P3 medical bills, worth about Rs.5,053/- alone.
2.3. To substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked 63 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.63. To disprove the prosecution version, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on the side of the accused.
2.4. The Trial Court framed the following point for consideration:- ''Whether the charges framed against the accused are proved by the prosecution?''
2.5.Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, II Additional District Court, Madurai, found that the prosecution not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
(3.)Against the said judgment dated 29.03.2012, the appellant/State has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.