Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.Sandesh
K.T. Srinivas, S/o Late K.J.Tirumalachalar – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police For C.B.I And ACB – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of factual background concerning the loan and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the conspiracy and procedural failures in prosecution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court observations regarding the lack of evidence for conspiracy. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. details on evidence and testimonies relating to accused's role. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. discussion on the presumption of evidence in criminal cases. (Para 26 , 29) |
| 6. the conclusion and resulting order regarding the appeal. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
This appeal is filed by accused No.3 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special C.C.No.67/2002 dated 13.02.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and prayed this Court to acquit him and pass appropriate order.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the CBI before the Trial Court is that the appellant herein is a general power of attorney holder of accused No.2, who is the proprietrix of M/s. V.B Bakery. The firm had availed the overdraft and term loan facility from State Bank of India Bank, V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru. The accused No.1 was the Manager of the Bank when the loa
To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, there must be sufficient evidence demonstrating a meeting of minds and the intent to commit fraud, as mere presumption is insufficient.
The judgment establishes the difficulty in proving conspiracy and the importance of inferring conspiracy from surrounding circumstances. It also emphasizes the severe consequences of corruption and t....
The judgment emphasizes the need for independent evidence for each offense, the distinct and independent nature of certain offenses, and the application of section 26 of the General Clauses Act in de....
Intention to cheat must exist from the outset for a conviction under IPC Section 420; absence of deceitful intent and no pecuniary advantage mandated an acquittal.
Exceeding authority in banking operations without financial loss to the bank does not establish intent to defraud or misconduct under the IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act.
Conviction upheld for conspiracy and corruption based on evidence of fraudulent loan acquisition, while sentence modified to one year imprisonment.
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – There must be reasonable connection between the act and discharge of official duty.(2) Conviction based upon such a person who is unworthy of credit, ....
The case establishes that bank officials can be charged with conspiracy and cheating for failing to adhere to loan granting procedures, leading to significant financial losses to the institution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
