T.MATHIVANAN
R. Srinath – Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has preferred this petition to set aside the order passed in the Memorandum in C.C.No.22 of 2006, dated 18.09.2010, pending on the file of the learned XI Additional
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
2. The facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under:
The petitioner has been employed as the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India at Chetput Branch, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. He has been facing charges under Sections 120-B read with 409, 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with the case in C.C.No.22 of 2006, on the file of the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that during September 2003 to February 2004, the petitioner along with the other accused had conspired to cheat the bank by abusing their official position by permitting M/s.Anand Agencies to indulge in Kite Flying Operation by giving immediate credit to the high value outward clearing cheque, while on the other hand sending them
1. AIR 1976 SC 294, Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration
4. AIR 1964 SC 1563, Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat
6. 2003 (3) CTC 291, State rep.by ADSP, CBCID v. Tmt.Indirakumari & Ors
8. AIR 1977 SC 170, Shri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa
2. AIR 1977 SC 170, R.K.Dey v. State of Orissa
5. AIR 2004 SC 524, K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police
7. AIR 2002 SC 1856, P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka
9. AIR 2007 SC 489, V.Venkata Subbarao v. State, rep by Inspector of Police, A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.