The Hindu : National : ``Falsification'' of accounts: judge's poser to prosecution

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Feb 03, 2005

National

National

``Falsification'' of accounts: judge's poser to prosecution

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI, FEB. 2. The Madras High Court, hearing an anticipatory bail plea by the senior Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Mutt, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, in the ``Falsification of mutt accounts case,'' today asked the prosecution on how the provisions dealing with cheating, forgery and using forged documents could be invoked in the case.

On January 4, the Siva Kanchi police registered a case against the Mutt accountant, Kaladi Viswanathan, and the manager, Sundaresa Iyer, alleging that they had tampered with the Mutt accounts ledger and removed certain pages from it. They have been charged with offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 463 (forgery), 465 (punishment for forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document) and 474 (possessing forged document). Apprehending arrest in the matter, the Acharya has moved the High Court for anticipatory bail.

When the matter came up for hearing, Justice M. Thanikachalam sought to know how the case was registered under these Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

While the Government Advocate said that he was yet to get instructions and sought an adjournment for the Public Prosecutor to argue, counsel for the Acharya, K.S. Dinakaran, submitted that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's name was not mentioned in the First Information Report and that the petition was filed based on an apprehension.

``It is their account, and they have lawful authority to operate it. It is not the Government's account,'' the judge said. If it was the Government's case that with a view to suppressing the evidence relating to the alleged payment made to the assailants in the Sankararaman murder case, then there was a ``proper provision'' in Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen an offender), Mr. Justice Thanikachalam observed.

The charge of falsification of documents would lie only if it was done ``without lawful authority," he said adding that the Mutt authorities had lawful authority to operate their bank accounts.

Even in the case of Section 201, the judge said, the charge should come only along with the murder charge, and not in the form of a separate case. He then adjourned the matter to February 4 for further hearing.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News Update

Stories in this Section