Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 547
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
State rep. by Inspector of Police CBI/SCB
Versus
M.R. Natarajan & Another
Criminal Appeal No.1454 of 2003
Decided On :Decided on : 02-02-2012
For the Appellant: N. Chandrasekaran, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases.
For the Respondents - R1 & R2 - B.S. Jhothiraman, Advocate.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused should be considered.
Headnote:
Sanction - Competency of Sanctioning Authority - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1947 - (1991) 3 SCC 655 (K.Veeraswami v. Union of India and others), AIR 2007 SC 1274 (Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others) - The sanction accorded by P.W.1 is not in accordance with law as he was not a competent person to accord sanction for prosecuting the respondents. The entire criminal proceedings were vitiated due to the lack of proper sanction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of fabrication and production of false purchase registers to various banks, causing a loss to Bank of India. The accused were acquitted by the Special Court due to lack of proper sanction and failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Special Court correctly held that the non-production of vital documents, non-examination of vital witnesses, and absence of independent and impartial investigation led to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: Competency of the sanctioning authority, admissibility of documents, burden of proof, and adequacy of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden is heavily upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If two views are possible, the view favoring the accused is to be taken into consideration.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of acquittal made by the Special Court.
1. Challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 03.01.2003 made in C.C.No.6 of 1997 by the learned Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai., the State has preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) P.W.32-Shivaji, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., E.O.W., Chennai has laid a final report against A1 and A2/respondents herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1947.
(ii) A1 was functioning as a Dealer and A2 was an Officer in Foreign Exchange Department, Bank of India, Main Branch at Chennai. During the period between 1980 and 1981, first accused as a Dealer and second accused as an officer, purchased and sold foreign currency. The case of the prosecution is that during that period, no interbank foreign transaction between Lakshmi Vilas Bank and Bank of America and that A1 and A2 have fabricated the documents and caused loss to the tune of Rs.6,22,282.48 to the Bank. Therefore, P.W.1 has accorded sanction for prosecuting A1 and A2/respondents herein and gave Ex.P1-sanction order.
(iii) P.W.2-Jagannathan, P.W.3-Gopalakrishnan and P.W.5-Sethumadhavan rao are Officers of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank. They deposed that there was no such sale and purchase of foreign currency with Bank of India for purchasing 1,55,000 and 5,00,000 U.S. Dollars to the tune of as per the documents under Exs. P7 and P11. P.W.4-M.S.Govindan was working as Special Assistant, Accounts Section, Foreign Exchange Department, Lakshmi Vilas Bank, stated that as per the entries in Ex.P12, dated 15.4.1981, there was no forward purchase for 50,000 U.S. Dollars from Bank of India by Lakshmi Vilas Bank.
(iv) P.W.6-Mohandoss and P.W.7-Uma Srinivasan, who were working in Bank of America during that periodalso deposed that there was no contract on 31.01.1981 between Bank of India and Bank of America. P.W.8 was a partner of M/S.G.A.Vasanth Exchange and P.W.9-Hari Krishnan was working as an Agent in M/S.V.Chandar and sons. They also deposed that there was no such transaction. As soon as the prosecution has submitted that there was no interbank for dealing during that period, A1 and A2 conspired themselves and in order to conceal the actual foreign exchange position, A1 and A2 gave a false sales purchase to the various banks. As a result, there was a loss to the tune of Rs.6,22,282.48.
(v) The Special Court after following the procedure, framed 12 charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.32 and Exs.P1 to P226, acquitted the accused stating that the sanction accorded by P.W.1 is not in accordance with law and the documents alleged to be marked to show that there was a fictitious transaction and there was no interbank between Bank of India with Lakshmi Vilas Bank and Bank of America, were not original. Further, Original documents were not marked and copies of documents alone had been produced and no reason was assigned why originals were not produced before the Court. It is also further held that the author of the documents was not examined to prove the genuineness of the document. Furthermore, investigating Officer has not followed the procedure for seizing the documents and he has not preferred any Seizure mahazar and recovery mahazar and hence, the documents produced before the Court had not proved in accordance with law. Hence, the trial Court had given benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and acquitted the accused.
3. Challenging the order of acquittal, Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 is a competent person to accord sanction. Admittedly A1 is a dealer in-charge of the Foreign Exchange Department and A2 is an officer in-charge. During their tenure, they fabricated and produced false purchase register to various banks, thereby the Bank of India has suffered a huge loss. Hence, P.W.1 has given sanction order for prosecuting
