Misappropriation in coop society
R RAJALAKSHMI
(Querist) 03 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 convicted in the trial court. But on appeal, he was acquited 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.?
Guest
(Expert) 03 June 2018
With what of your personal concern and in what capacity in the organization you have asked your query?
ramesh
(Expert) 03 June 2018
Very vague question. Explain in detail your query, also your concern.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 June 2018
You have posted;
“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.”
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 June 2018
In other thread you have posted
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Misappropriation-in-coop-society-682786.asp
“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.”
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 legal opinion of your own counsel and similar queries,articles thru search option at LCI and citations e.g;
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/
and pick up relevant points and relate with your matter..
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 04 June 2018
I agree with Kumar Doab. I want to addd that in Hemanth Kumar Mohapatra vs. Binod Bihari Mohapatra an identical case it was only a clerical mistake due to which his name was wrongly mentioned Dinabandhu in p-lace of his correct name as Binod Bihari.with the result the criminal Revision was allowed impugned order set aside and trial court directed to make necessary correction.in the charge sheet.
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
Guest
(Expert) 04 June 2018
Your query very clearly reveals that it is merely an unconvincing hypothetical query. A pertinent question arises, whether both the prosecution kept fully drugged during the long trial of the case that it could not detect that they are trying someone in the name of someone else?
Better discuss what exactly is your own problem and for what you want a solution and why?
