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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 3539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M.R. Saravanakumar & Others - Appellants
Versus
State through the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB & Others - Respondents
Crl. A. Nos. 534 of 2016 467 of 2017
Decided On : 27-11-2017

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, Senior Counsel, R. Radhapanchian, Advocate, K. Srinivasan, Spl. PP
For the Respondents:K. Srinivasan, Spl. PP., Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, Senior Counsel for R. Radhapanchian, Adithya Varadarajan for N. Anand Venkatesh, Advocates

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B r/w 420 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Fraud - Corruption - Criminal Trial - Challenging the acquittal of A1 to A7 for the alleged offence under the Act, 1988 and the acquittal of the public servants A1, A2 and A5 for the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988, the State has preferred Crl. Appeals - Held, Finding of the trial Court that A3,A6 and A7 guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC is well found and there is no need to interfere with it - At the same time, there is no substantial evidence to convict A1 to A7 for conspiracy or for other offences since two views are possible, the view of the trial Court acquitting the other accused does not require any interference - Ordered accordingly

JUDGMENT :

1. Based on the complaint, dated 21.01.2009 given by one M.R. Bagade, CBI has registered a case in Crime No. RC MAI 2009 A 0005/CBI ACB, Chennai. Seven persons were accused in the final report and charges were framed against them for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A1 [P.K. Velayuthan], Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Gugai Branch, Salem, A2 [Mathivanan Inbaraj], Loan Manager/Deputy Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Gugai Branch, Salem, A5 [B. Jayachandran], Panel Valuer of Syndicate Bank, Salem are Public Servants. A3 [M.R. Saravanakumar] and A4 [Rajesh Khanna] are Managing Partner and Partner of the M/s Easa Jewellery respectively. A6[Easwari] is the Proprietrix of M/s Roshini Silvers. A7[V. Tamilarasan] is the Proprietor of M/s S.R.V. Jewellery. Specific charges were framed against the Public Servants viz., A1[P.K. Velayuthan], A2 [Mathivanan Inbaraj] and A5 [B. Jayachandran] under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Whereas, conspiracy to do substantial offence under Section 420 of IPC is against A1 to A7.

2. The trial Court has acquitted all the accused for conspiracy and the Public Servants A1[P.K. Velayuthan], A2 [Mathivanan Inbaraj] and A5 [B. Jayachandran] for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sofar as the private individuals A3 [M.R. Saravanakumar], A6[Easwari] and A7[V. Tamilarasan] are concerned, the trial Court has found them guilty of offence under Section 420 (1 count) IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of three years(3) and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Challenging the said sentence, A3 [M.R. Saravanakumar], A6[Easwari] and A7[V. Tamilarasan] had preferred Crl.A.No.534 of 2016. Challenging the acquittal of A1 to A7 for the alleged offence under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the acquittal of the public servants A1[P.K. Velayuthan], A2 [Mathivanan Inbaraj] and A5 [B. Jayachandran] for the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the State has preferred Crl.A.No.467 of 2017.

3. Since subject matter of both the appeals against conviction and acquittal is arising out of the same judgment, after hearing the learned counsel representing the parties, the following a common judgment is passed.

4. On 31.01.2009, Mr. V.D. Sebastian, the Inspector of Police attached to ACB, Sastri Bhavan, based on the complaint given by Mr. M.R. Bagade, Chief Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Bengalore, had registered a complaint against C.Jabagurunathan and three others for suspected offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged document as genuine. Since three named persons were Officials of Syndicate Bank, Mr.V.D.Sebastian, Inspector of Police had registered the complaint for prima facie disclosure of offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467,468, and 471 of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The completion of investigation has led to filing of final report against seven accused persons.

5. The trial Court, on perusal of the records relied on by the prosecution, has framed the following three charges:

Firstly, that A1 to A7 during 2004-2005 entered into criminal conspiracy at Salem and other places to cheat the Syndicate Bank, Gugai Branch, Salem, pursuance of the criminal conspiracy of the said.

(a) A3 and A4 opened an account in the name of M/s Easa Jewellery bearing No.125-755 with Syndicate Bank, Gugai Branch, Salem and applied for a secured overdraft of Rs.10 lakhs on 30.04.2004 for developing the Jewelery business by offe






























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