Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
G. Subbaraman & Others – Appellants
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 445, 448, 438 & 479 of 2010 & M.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 2 of 2010
Decided On : 05-02-2018
Bankers book Evidence Act – Sections 4, 64, 65 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120, 420, 477 – Withdrawal of amount – M/s.Nurit Inks (P). Ltd represented by its Managing Director G.Ramachandran is a constituent of the Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch since 1984. – On 20.12.1991 Thiru. G.S.Subbaraman as the Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch purchased a Foreign Cheque bearing No. 79584032 A/c with Union Bank, Switzerland, Zurich for Swizz Franc One Lakh issued by one Ms. Malliga Saravanamuthu payable to NIFE.AB. – The cheque was endorsed by the payee to Shri G.Ramachandran of M/s. Nurit Inks (P) Ltd. – The proceeds of the cheque was credited into the savings bank account of G.Ramachandran and he had withdrawn the amount subsequently. – The cheque so purchased by G.S.Subbaraman and encashed by Ramachandran returned unhonoured on 08.01.1992 for the reason cheque blocked. – A sum of Rs.18,63,932/- being the FBP liability was reversed on 14.01.1992. – Later, Shri N.Kumar, nephew of G.Ramachandran remitted Rs.12 lakhs on 23.1.1992, Rs.5 lakhs on 24.1.1992 and Rs.2 lakhs totally a sum of Rs.19 lakhs towards this liability and the same was credited into the account of Ramachandran on 04.02.1992 and adjusted towards the PBP liability and interest. – Held, Rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. – In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. – Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. – The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. – Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. – Court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellants through the best evidence available with them. Relying upon the photocopies of documents not duly certified in the manner known to law, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Criminal Appeals Nos. 445, 448, 438 & 479 of 2010 are allowed. – The Judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. – The bail bond executed if any, shall stand cancelled. – Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellants. – Order Accordingly
1. M/s.Nurit Inks (P). Ltd represented by its Managing Director G.Ramachandran is a constituent of the Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch since 1984. On 20.12.1991 Thiru. G.S.Subbaraman as the Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch purchased a Foreign Cheque bearing No. 79584032 A/c with Union Bank, Switzerland, Zurich for Swizz Franc One Lakh issued by one Ms. Malliga Saravanamuthu payable to NIFE.AB. The cheque was endorsed by the payee to Shri G.Ramachandran of M/s. Nurit Inks (P) Ltd. The proceeds of the cheque was credited into the savings bank account of G.Ramachandran and he had withdrawn the amount subsequently. The cheque so purchased by G.S.Subbaraman and encashed by Ramachandran returned unhonoured on 08.01.1992 for the reason cheque blocked. A sum of Rs.18,63,932/- being the FBP liability was reversed on 14.01.1992. Later, Shri N.Kumar, nephew of G.Ramachandran remitted Rs.12 lakhs on 23.1.1992, Rs.5 lakhs on 24.1.1992 and Rs.2 lakhs on 25.01.1992 totally a sum of Rs.19 lakhs towards this liability and the same was credited into the account of Ramachandran on 04.02.1992 and adjusted towards the PBP liability and interest.
2. Again, on 05.02.1992, G.S.Subbaraman purchased another cheque bearing No. 79584035 issued by Ms. Malliga Saravanamuthu in favour of N.Kumar for a sum of 1 lakh US Dollars in the A/c of Union Bank, Switzerland, Zurich. On the same day, i.e., 05.02.1992, Rs.20 lakhs from the proceeds of the cheque purchased was credited into the account of N.Kumar and remaining balance amount, Rs.5,45,652/- was used to create a short term Fixed Deposit for 46 days in the name of N.Kumar. On 07.02.1992, against the above said short term deposit, loan of Rs.4,09,000/- was sanctioned to N.Kumar and credited into the account of M/s. Nurit Inks (P) Ltd, by the Senior Manager, Subbaraman.
3. The cheque so purchased on presentation for collection, returned on 19.02.1992 with endorsement 'A/c closed'. The cheque was represented on 30.03.1992. Once again the cheque got bounced on 09.04.1992 for the very same reason. A sum of Rs.30,30,303/- was reversed into unpaid account on 02.07.1992, after lapse of 3 months. To secure the foreign Bill Purchase (FBP) liability, the title deed of the house and the building of one Chandrakanthamma situated at Mahalakshmi Street, T.Nagar, Chennai was given to create the equitable mortgage on 07.02.1992.
4. As per the instruction of AGM, Mr.Raveendiran, Chief Manager in the Regional Office, Madras South inspected the Mylapore Branch and verified the transaction relating to the foreign Bill Purchase presented by Ramachandran and N.Kumar. He reported several irregularities in the two cheques purchased by Subbaraman. The irregularities includes purchase of bills exceeding the limit, non intimation to the higher authorities, discounting the cheques to the customers who did not enjoy the foreign bill purchase facility, delay in reversing the unpaid money, creating equitable mortgage of the property without the consent of the owner, anti-dating the Equitable Mortgage in the EM register.
5. Meanwhile, Tmt.Chandrakanthamma gave a written complaint to the Chairman cum Managing Director of Indian Bank on 08.09.1992 alleging that the title deed of her property was obtained from her by one Ramalingam@M.R.Lingam along with signed papers on false promise and misrepresentation. Later misused to create equitable mortgage for the loan sanctioned to M/s.Nurit Inks(P)Ltd., in connivance with bank officials.
6. After giving opportunity to the bank officials involved in the above said transactions, being primafacie satisfied that Bank officials in connivance with some private individuals had committed offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust, fabrication of accounts and criminal misconduct pursuance of criminal conspiracy, criminal complaint was lodged by the Chief Officer Vigilance attached to I
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
