SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 179

High Court of Kerala
V. RAMKUMAR
Rajeevan
Versus
C.B.I.
Crl Appeal Nos. 295(C), 296, 304, 305,307,315 & 316 of 2000
Decided on : 18-02-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.R. Aswas, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Sreekumar, SC FOR CBI.

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 162 and 374 (2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120 B, 420 and 468 r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act - Offence under - Convicted - Appeal against - Question arise in the appeal Whether Once chief examination is commenced, party who calls him cannot give up witness or withdraw him and thereby deprive the opposite party right of cross examination - Whether conviction entered and sentence passed against all or any of appellants are sustainable or not - Held, Procedure adopted by prosecution is to be deprecated - A witness can be given up before he enters witness box - Even when witness enters witness box and oath is administered to him, it is not too late and he can be asked to withdraw from witness box - But once chief examination is commenced, party who calls him cannot give up witness or withdraw him - Thereby deprive opposite party right of cross-examination - The practice of prosecution giving up witness after commencement of chief-examination and without tendering the witness for cross-examination is unhealthy, irregular and not warranted by law - Trial Judge also wrongly admitted Ext.P22 and P23 replies which were really hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. - Trial Judge overlooked the fact that first accused was facing a charge of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 B I.P.C. and therefore, he should have been permitted to cross-examine aforementioned witnesses - Refusal to do so has resulted in prejudice to A1 - Trial Judge also was not alive to requirements of law while conducting trial appellants were unfortunate victims of a concatenation of all the above adverse circumstances - Conviction and sentence against appellants overlooking the above vital aspects of matter cannot be sustained and are accordingly dislodged - Appellants are found not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420 and 468 I.P.C. and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C.act - Appellants are acquitted - Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :-

1. These appeals filed under Sec. 374 (2) Cr.P.C. arise out of the common judgment dated 28-4-2000 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI) - 1, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Court" in C.C. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 1993. Two of the accused in two of the aforesaid C.C. Cases are common. In C.C. 9 of 1993 there were three accused persons and in C.C. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1993 there were two accused persons. The first accused in all the three cases namely Joseph Alappatt is a common accused. The appeals filed by the said common first accused in C.C. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 1993 are Crl.Appeals 307, 315 and 316 of 2000. Crl. Appeal 304 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd accused (H.Vahab) in C.C. 9 of 1993. Crl.Appeal No. 295 of 2000 is filed by the 3rd accused (Rajeevan) in C.C. 9 of 1993). Crl.A. 305 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd accused (K.Thajudheen @ Thaju) in C.C. 10 of 1993. Crl.A. 296 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd accused (Rajeevan) in C.C. 11 of 1993.

PROSECUTION CASE IN C.C. 9 OF 1993

2. The case of the prosecution in C.C. 9 of 1993 is as follows:-

A1 (Joseph Alappatt) was working as the Manager of the Quilon Branch of the Punjab National Bank ("PNB"for short) during the period 1988-1990 and was competent to sanction term loans. He was responsible for conducting pre-sanction inspection of the units/premises of the applicants for loan for ascertaining the genuineness of the application and eligibility of the applicants before sanctioning the loan. Some time during October 1989 A1(Joseph Alappatt), A2 (H.Vahab) and A3 (Rajeevan) entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat PNB. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A2 representing the firm Salim Agencies filed a false loan application before PNB for a term loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 7-10-1989 to operate a shop for hiring steel tables and chairs. Along with the loan application A2 had enclosed a quotation from "Distributors Quilon" at Kadappakkada, a non-existing firm purportedly represented by A3 Rajeevan for the supply of folding chairs and folding tables for Rs. 2,04,375/-. On 7-10-1989 itself A1 sanctioned the loan fully knowing that the loan application was false. A1 issued pay orders for Rs. 1,44,375/- dated 7-10-1989 and Rs. 60,000/- dated 16-10-1989 including the margin money of Rs.54,375/- remitted by the loanee in favour of "Distributors Quilon". In pursuance of the said conspiracy A3 Rajeevan opened an account in the name of "Distributors Quilon" in the Quilon branch of the Dhanalakshmi Bank and credited the said pay orders in the said account and withdrew the credited amounts by means of cheques dated 11-10-1989 for Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 74,000/- and by cheque dated 17-10-1989 for Rs.60,000/-. A3 was not doing any steel furniture business at Kadappakkada under the name and style of "Distributors Quilon". He was actually running a Saw Mill at Quilon. He had not supplied any steel table or folding chairs to A2 and A2 had appropriated the loan amount with the assistance of A3. The quotation in the name of "Distributors Quilon", a non-existing firm was forged by A3 on or about 7-10-1989 intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating PNB. A1 (Joseph Alappat) being a public servant, in his capacity as the Manager of PNB, on or about 7-10-1989 by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant, obtained for A2 pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- by sanctioning the said amount as loan from PNB acting on the false loan application submitted by A2 and by issuing the pay orders for Rs. 1,44,375/- and Rs.60,000/- in favour of "Distributors Quilon", which were encashed by A2 with the assistance of A3. A1 to A3 thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420 and 468 I.P.C. and Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the P.C. Act" for short).

PROSECUTION CASE IN C.C. 10 OF 1993

3. The case of the prosecution in C.C. 10 of



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top