Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1318
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
V. Krishnan & Another
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB, Shastri Bhavan
Criminal Appeal Nos.206 & 213 of 2006
Decided on: 13-03-2012
For the Appellants:S.A. Rajan, R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: N. Chandrasekaran, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases).
Ratio
The sanction shall be given by the authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
Headnote:(A)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(48 of 1988)-Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2), 19(2)-Corruption-Bank-Deposit-Misappropriation-Sanction-Validity-Appellants were prosecuted by the respondent on an allegation that an amount of Rs.60,000 given by a depositor was misappropriated by them-Based upon the evidence of the depositor, Zonal manager of the Madras zone and other witnesses, the appellants were convicted and sentenced against which they preferred appeal-While the appellants contended that they worked in Mappedu branch which came under the Vellore Zone and the sanction was given by the Chennai Zonal manager which was not valid and the evidence of the witnesses were not convincing which plea was resisted by the respondent-Held, competent authority to grant sanction would be the one who was competent to remove the accused at the time of commission of the offence-As the Mappedu branch had been under Chennai zone at the time of the commission of the offence, sanction given by the Zonal manager of Chennai Zone was valid in law-The version of the witnesses were cogent and convincing-Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
(B)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(48 of 1988)-Sec.19(2)-Corruption-Sanction-Validity-The sanction shall be given by the authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
As per the above Section, the sanction shall be given by authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The offence was committed in the year 1991, but the Vellore zone has been formed only in the year 1995. In such circumstances, I am of the view, P.W.1-Zonal Manager of Chennai Zone, is a competent person to accord sanction, since Mappedu branch comes under Chennai Zone during the period of commission of offence. Para 11
Common Judgment
1. The Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 10.02.2006, made in C.C.No.3 of 1999, on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai, whereby the accused were convicted for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 477(A) IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(C) & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them to undergo each one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo each three months simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 120B IPC and further sentenced them to undergo each two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-each in default in payment to undergo each six months simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 477(A) IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988. Both the accused were directed to undergo the period of sentences concurrently.
2. The respondent/S.P., C.B.I. herein filed a charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 stating that on 15.10.1991, at about 8.45 a.m., one Balaramapillai, son of Elumalai Pillai, gone to the Indian Bank, Mappedu Branch and entrusted a sum of Rs.50,000/-to A1 with a specific instruction to issue a RIP certificate in favour of himself for a period of two years. A1/Dilip Kumar had entered into a criminal conspiracy with A2/Krishnan and fraudulently and dishonestly prepared a bogus RIP receipt bearing No.EF/RIP/CC No.320759 dated 15.10.1991, which was signed by A1/Dilip Kumar as an authorised signatory knowing fully well that the issuance of bogus RIP receipt is not reflected in the books of accounts of the Bank and thereby they got pecuniary advantage of Rs.50,000/-. On the maturity date, the said Balaramapillai surrendered the RIP receipt to one A.Karuppaiah, Manager, who posted in the place of A1. A.Karuppaiah could not find any documentary evidence pertaining to the issuance of the said RIP. Therefore, the Bank was lodged a complaint against the accused 1 and 2 and then P.W.8-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420, 477(A) IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) During the period between 1991 and 1993, A1 was working as a Manager of Indian Bank, Mappedu Branch, A2 was a Clerk, P.W.5-Usha was a Typist, P.W.7-Devendrarao was a Cashier. On 15.10.1991, P.W.3-Balakrishnan, his father-in-law Balaramapillai along with his relative one Krishnan went to Indian Bank, Mappedu Branch, to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- for two years. At the time, A1, A2 and one Palanivadivelu, who was working as an Officer were present in the Bank and the amount was deposited in the name of Balaramapillai. Then, A1 directed them to come after four days for receiving F.D. receipt. Thereafter, P.W.3 went to the Bank and received the receipt.
(ii) On 16.10.1993, they went to the Bank for withdrawing the matured amount, after the date of maturity and gave the F.D. receipt to P.W.4-Karuppaiah, who was working as Manager. He said that the amount was accumulated to Rs.63,335/- and then he canvassed for renewal of the deposit and they agreed for the deposit of Rs.60,000/-in Re-investment plan (R.I.P.) and they wished to withdraw remaining balance amount of Rs.3,335/-. Even though a token was given for the payment of Rs.3,335/-, no payment was made to the father-in-law of P.W.3. When they made an enquiry, P.W.4 informed them that no amount was deposited in the Bank as per the receipt shown to him. So P.W.4 directed P.W.3 to come after two days and handed over the xerox copy of the F.D. receipt, which was marked as Ex.P3.
(iii) After verification, P.W.4, the then Manager found that no amount was deposited in the name of Balaramapillai in the Bank account and Ex.P3 was not signed by Palanivadivelu, who was an author
