Misappropriation in coop society
R RAJALAKSHMI
(Querist) 02 June 2018
This query is : Resolved
In 1992, in a cooperative handloom society., the special officer has misappropriated Rs. 3,00,000 by way of forgery bill as sale of sarees to some company.
1. In continuation to this, charge sheet was filed against him ,in which instead of �saree�, it was mentioned as �shirts�.
2. Later in the prosecution enquiry in 2000, it was found that there was no such company in existence , to which the above sale was done by the special officer.
3. So it very clear that the special officer, being a government servant has done the misappropriation. And that too the money of the member's of the society.
4. For the above crime, he was acquited in the trial court. But on appeal, he was convicted based o the above said clerical error.
So,pls clarify
1.whether this clerical error in the charge sheet be treated as �material change� of the charge.
2. It is clear that the accused has done the crime. So pls guide me how can he be punished under the law.?
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 June 2018
You have posted
“4. For the above crime, he was acquited in the trial court. But on appeal, he was convicted based o the above said clerical error.”
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 June 2018
In other thread
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Misappropriation-in-coop-society-682846.asp
“4. For the above crime, he was convicted in the trial court. But on appeal, he was acquited based o the above said clerical error.”
What is the opinion of your own very able senior LOCAL counsel (s) of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in Labor/servbcie matters and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt… with whom you have discussed in person and have shown all case related docs………………….
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 June 2018
In the meantime you may go thru;
Orissa High Court
Hemanta Kumar Mohapatra vs Binod Bihari Mohapatra
11.. I have already discussed above that the non-mention of the name of the petitioner in the charge was merely a clerical error and could be corrected.
12. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to make necessary correction in the charge sheet by bringing in the name of Binod Behari Mohapatra in place of Dinabandhu.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595971/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 June 2018
And
Supreme Court of India
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr on 19 October, 2010
Author: R V Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Gokhale
9….. It is well settled that the correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1535933/
