Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
L.George & Others - Appellant
Versus
State rep.by The Superintendent of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.724 of 1998, 725 of 1998, 771 of 1998, 774 of 1998 and 823 of 1998
Decided On : 26 April 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SANCTION OF LOAN - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(2) R/W 5(1)(D) - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 120-B R/W 420 - JOINT TRIAL - MISJOINDER OF CHARGES AND PERSONS - DISHONEST INTENTION - PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE.
Fact of the Case:
A-1, the Branch Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Ooty, sanctioned loans to A-3 and A-4 under the "Self-Employment to Educated Unemployed Youth Scheme" by allegedly abusing his official position. A-2, A-3, and A-4 were also accused of conspiring and submitting false declarations to obtain the loans. The prosecution alleged that A-1 obtained pecuniary advantage for A-3 and A-4 by sanctioning the loans, knowing that they would not use them for the intended purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that A-3 and A-4 made false declarations or that A-1 obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for them. The court also found that the joint trial of the accused was illegal due to misjoinder of charges and persons, which prejudiced the accused. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove that A-1 had the dishonest intention required for a conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that A-3 and A-4 made false declarations to obtain loans under the "Self-Employment to Educated Unemployed Youth Scheme". 2. Whether the prosecution proved that A-1 obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for A-3 and A-4 by sanctioning the loans. 3. Whether the joint trial of the accused was illegal due to misjoinder of charges and persons. 4. Whether the prosecution proved that A-1 had the dishonest intention required for a conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that A-3 and A-4 made false declarations to obtain loans under the "Self-Employment to Educated Unemployed Youth Scheme" because there was no evidence to support this allegation and the prosecution witnesses did not implicate A-3 and A-4 in any false declaration. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that A-1 obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for A-3 and A-4 by sanctioning the loans because there was no evidence to show that A-1 derived any pecuniary advantage from the transaction and the loans were repaid in full by A-3 and A-4. 3. The court held that the joint trial of the accused was illegal due to misjoinder of charges and persons because the transactions involving A-3 and A-4 were different, they were not related to each other, and there was no evidence to connect them with the activities of A-1. 4. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that A-1 had the dishonest intention required for a conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 because there was no evidence to show that A-1 intended to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself or for A-3 and A-4.
Final Decision: The court allowed all five appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants/accused, and ordered the refund of any fine amounts paid.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.724, 771 & 774 of 1998 filed against the Judgment dated 31.08.1998 passed in C.C.No.13 of 1998 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge/Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Coimbatore.
Criminal Appeal Nos.725 and 823 of 1998 filed against the Judgment dated 31.08.1998 passed in C.C.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge/Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Coimbatore.)
Common Judgment:
A-1, who is the appellant in Crl.A.Nos.724 and 725 of 1998, A-2, who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.771 of 1998, A-2, who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.823 of 1998, A-3, who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.724 of 1998 and A-4, who is the appellant in Crl.A.No.774 of 1998, have come forward with these appeals challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District Judge/Special Judge for C.B.I.Cases, Coimbatore, in C.C.Nos.13 and 14 of 1998 convicting A-1, in Crl.A.Nos.724 and 725 of 1998, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act in each case and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months imprisonment for each offence in each case, convicting A-2, in Crl.A.No.771 of 1998, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act and under Section 109 IPC r/w Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months imprisonment for each offence, convicting A-2, in Crl.A.No.823 of 1998, under Section 420 IPC and under Section 109 IPC and 5 (2)r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months imprisonment for each offence, convicting A-3 and A-4, in Crl.A.Nos.724 and 774 of 1998 respectively, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act and under Section 420 IPC and under Section 109 IPC and 5 (2)r/w 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentencing each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months imprisonment for each offence.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 was working as a Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Ooty Branch, from 26.07.1985 to 09.05.1986. A-2 in Crl.A.No.771 of 1998, was one of the account holders in the same branch and he used to visit the branch frequently and therefore he is having acquaintance with A-1. A-3 and A-4 are loanees.
3. (a) The sum and substance of the prosecution case in Crl.A.Nos.724, 771 and 774 of 1998 is that A-1 to A-4 during the period between February 1985 and March 1986 at Ooty and other places conspired and A-3 and A-4 knowing fully well that both of them are not eligible for getting any loan under "Self-Employment to Educated Unemployed Youth Scheme" by fraudulently and dishonestly submitted false declaration and information to the State Bank of Travancore and A-1 knowing fully well that A-3 and A-4 are not eligible for the said loan under the above said scheme fraudulently and dishonestly in pursuance of the conspiracy, by misusing or abusing his official position as Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Ooty, sanctioned a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in favour of A-3 and A-4 respectively for the purpose of setting up a knitting centre and cloth shop. It is also further alleged that A-1 was well aware that the said loan amounts will not be used by them for the purpose for which the loans are sanctioned.
(b) The entire alleged fraudulent transaction for obtaining loan arising out of the Scheme called the "Self-Employment to Educated Unemployed Youth Scheme". P.W.4, who was the Field Officer during the period
AI
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
