IMPORTANT POINT
In a case involving conspiracy to commit offence under PC Act and substantive offence u/s 417 IPC, payment of amount involved is no ground to quash the criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Gogoi, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘A – 2’) in CC No. 48 of 2011 (RC 27(A)/2004) in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the refusal dated 25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding lodged by the respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter for short ‘CBI’).

3. The allegations made against the accused – appellant in the FIR dated 30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused – appellant alongwith one T.K. Rajeev Kumar (A – 1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Killippalam Branch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A – 3) (since deceased) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused – appellant dishonestly applied for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused – appellant furnished a forged agreement for purchase of a second hand Lancer Car bearing No. KL – 5L – 7447 showing the value thereof as Rs. 6.65 lakhs though the accused – appellant had purchased the said vehicle for Rs. 5.15 lakhs only. It is further alleged that A – 1, by abusing his official position as Branch Manager, dishonestly sanctioned Rs. 5 lakhs towards car loan without prerequisite sanction inspection. It is also alleged that A – 1, who did not have the authority to do so, sanctioned education loan of Rs.4 lakhs under the Vidyajyothi Scheme to the accused – appellant for undergoing a course on Digital Film Making at SAE Technology College, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the prosecution, the accused – appellant had submitted two forged receipts of the aforesaid college showing payment of Rs. 1,60,000/ – as fees which amount was duly released in his favour though he had actually paid Rs. 47,500/ – to the college and had attended the course only for three days.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that A – 1, without being authorised to do so, sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 17 lakhs to one M/s. Focus Infotainments of which the accused – appellant is the proprietor and in this regard had obtained inflated value of the collateral security offered by the accused – appellant from deceased accused, A – 3. According to the prosecution in the valuation report submitted by A – 3 the value of the property offered as a collateral security by A – 2 was shown at Rs.17,34,675/ – though the subsequent valuation thereof by an approved valuer was for Rs.8,56,600/ – . The prosecution had also alleged that after sanction of the said loan, A – 1 wiped out the over draft facility of Rs. 13,94,000/ – given to the accused – appellant without any authority by transferring the said amount from the cash credit account which was not only against the banking procedure but had also caused undue pecuniary advantage to the accused – appellant to the extent of Rs. 23,57,887/ – . On the aforesaid facts, commission of offences under Section 120 – B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420/471 IPC was alleged insofar as the accused – appellant is concerned.

5. Based on the aforesaid allegations RC Case No. 27(A)/2004 dated 21.7.2005 was registered wherein chargesheet had been filed against the accused – appellant under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as the PC Act. It is not in dispute that charges under the aforesaid provisions of law have been framed against the accused – appellant in the court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram on 29.07.2013.

6. Shri H.P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused – appellant had contended that all amounts due to the bank from the accused – appellant has been tendered in full in an o