IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Rathnavel & Others - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, State represented by the Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 258, 265, 281, 287 & 301 of 2009
Decided On : 23-01-2018
Forgery - Loan Fraud - Sections 120-B r/w 420, 406, 467, 468, 467 r/w 471, 468 r/w 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 - The court confirmed the conviction of the accused for forgery and loan fraud based on fabricated documents and impersonation. The accused were found guilty of conspiracy to cheat the bank and siphon loan amounts through fraudulent means.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a loan fraud where the accused conspired to cheat a bank by fabricating documents and impersonating individuals to obtain a loan for a non-existing firm. The accused were convicted under various sections of the IPC and the PC Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of forgery, fabrication of documents, and impersonation in obtaining the loan. The court also noted that the loan amount had been siphoned out through fraudulent means, and the accused failed to prove their innocence.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the fabrication of documents, impersonation, and fraudulent loan transactions. The court also considered the settlement of the loan amount and its impact on the sentencing of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of witnesses, including handwriting experts and government officials, to establish the fabrication of documents and impersonation. The court also considered the settlement of the loan amount by one of the accused and its impact on the sentencing.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction of the accused and modified the sentences based on the settlement of the loan amount. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently, and the period of imprisonment already undergone was set off.
1. These appeals are arising out of conviction against the appellants passed by the learned XI Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 19.05.2009 in C.C.No.66 of 2004.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
Based on the complaint dated 19.07.2002 given by one Shri Sudhakar N.Bhat, Assistant General Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Tamil Nadu, CBI has registered a case under R.C.MA1 2002 A 0030, dated 19.07.2002 against (1) J.S. Prabhu[A1], (2) Shri.V.Palanivel[A2], (3)Shri. Gunasekaran and other unknown public servants and private individuals for the offence of conspiring to cheat the Corporation Bank by sanctioning the loan to fictitious firm, which is not in existence. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, an application for loan annexed with forged revenue documents like, patta, chitta, adangal, kist receipts, house tax receipts and fake encumbrance certificate submitted to the Bank. Based on those documents, A1[J.S.Prabhu] being Manager of the Bank has sanctioned loan and allowed the borrower to withdraw the money immediately for purpose other than for which the loan was sanctioned under CORP VYAPAR Loan Scheme. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the final reports in C.C.Nos.61 to 66 of 2004 and tried the appellants. These appeals arise out of judgment passed in C.C.No.66 of 2004 by the Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.
3. The specific case of the prosecution in these appeals is that one Mr. Murugesan, Proprietor of M/s Saravana Lathe Works had applied for loan of Rs.3 lakhs to purchase new raw materials for manufacturing auto mobile spares. In the said application, he has shown one Kanniappan as guarantor who has signed in this application agreeing to offer his property at Kizmudhachambedu village as security. Along with this application, Mr.Murugesan has furnished title deed of property bearing S.No.390/8 of Gummidipoondi Taluk, chitta, adangal and encumbrance certificate in respect of the said property offered as collateral security. After sanctioning the loan, money of Rs.3 lakhs had been deposited into the account opened in the name of M/s Saravana Lathe Works. Later, the chitta, adangal and encumbrance certificate in respect of the property given as collateral security were found to be fabricated and false documents. The valuation certificate had been issued by T.N. Ravi[A6] as if the property given as collateral security consisting of land and building. In fact, it is only a vacant land. The money credited into the account of M/s Saravana Lathe Works had been withdrawn immediately through blank cheques signed by Murugesan and handed over to A2[Palanivel], who has filled up the cheques and siphoned the money.
4. Further, the investigation has brought to light that there is no such address bearing Door No.80, GST Road, Tambaram, Sanatorium, Chennai and there is no firm by name M/s Saravana Lathe Works. Thus, for non-existing firm based on forged documents, impersonating Kanniappan as guarantor. The title deed and other documents were obtained by Gunasekaran[A3] from Kanniappan on a false representation that he will arrange loans to Kanniappan. By misappropriating those documents forged deed of security and deposit of title deeds in the name of Kanniappan were created by Rathnavel[A4]. Making use of the forged documents as genuine the loan application was made and based on the fabricated records, the loan of rs.3 lakhs has been obtained. After sanctioning the loan, a portion of the money has been fraudulently transferred to the account of Sri Hari Agencies at Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Tambaram Branch opened by A2[Palanivel] with the introduction of one Thirumoorthy, A2[Palanivel] had impersonated himself as Ramasamy and Kannan and withdrawn the remaining money deposited in the account of M/s Saravana Lathe Works through cheques signed by Murugesan[A5]. The loan amount of R
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.